Disappointing Stress Test

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Elisa Francesca, Jun 19, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Today I finally had my Stress Test at the hospital to determine what level of effort I should put
    into my nightly hour's training on the stationary bike.

    I have had the stationary since January and have been using it devoutly in front of the TV for over
    5 months. I have been training at a pulse rate of 147 because that seemed to be my aerobic
    threshold, the point at which it starts to feel "hard to talk or sing normally" as someone in this
    forum put it. I've also been monitoring my resting pulse rate which now seems to be around 58 on a
    good day, although it varies widely. I train for half an hour then take a very short break, two or
    three minutes to gulp some water and mop the streaming sweat, then another similar break after 45
    minutes, and in the last two minutes of the hour I usually sprint, letting the pulse rate go way up
    into the anaerobic zone, because this seems to improve the recovery reading taken in the minute
    after I stop.

    The cardiologist measured a starting blood pressure of 15/9, which he said was high. The test
    finished at 162 pulses per minute and a tension rate of 24/8. His recommendation was that I train at
    around 135-140 pulses per minute, blood pressure around 21/8, rather than my current 145-147 at
    22/8. The energy produced at this rate is 120 watts, but my own machine doesn't measure watts so I
    cannot track that parameter.

    I'm disappointed that after 6 months of steady training I should still be in a hypertension zone of
    15/9, and that my resting rate doesn't seem to have improved much. The doctor told me, moreover,
    that it is unlikely that the blood pressure will go on improving beyond its current level, since
    there is a bottoming out effect. I don't know what it was before I started training, but on at least
    two occasions it alarmed doctors with readings up in the 18s, so perhaps there has been some
    improvement. On the other hand, I had hoped that improvement would be steady and that I would be
    able to control the hypertension with exercize alone. There he's talking about treating it with
    drugs, an idea I want to resist. I feel trapped because I know things will deteriorate if I _stop_
    training, but they won't improve if I continue.

    However, this doctor is a very taciturn, uncommunicative type and I couldn't get many answers out of
    him, so I turn to you highly trained people for your experiences.

    Is that famous resting pulse rate in the 40s that rewards trained cyclists open to everyone with
    continued effort, or is it a matter of talent and individual morphology? Does an hour's daily
    training get you there in the end, or do those people spend their lives pedalling? I really don't
    think I could do more than an hour - it's already extremely contraining as I often don't get home
    until 9pm and find myself pedalling deep into the night. Is it related to the blood pressure reading
    or an independent variable?

    What improves when you put effort in, and what motivates you to continue? Appearance-wise I have
    experienced no change whatsoever. My legs don't look a bit more muscular than in January,
    despite having the Frankenstein Walk from stiffness at the end of my sessions. I'm no slimmer,
    either. In the heat, I'm still getting the oedemas at the ankles from poor circulation that I
    had in the bad old days.

    My recorded speed seemed to improve for a while. At the lower resistances I could eventually cover
    up to 37 km in an hour. Now it's down to only about 30 km but the resistance is also higher.
    Unfortunately I do not know exactly what the resistance is: my machine has settings from 1 to 10 and
    the maximum is supposedly 25 kg, but does that necessarily make the setting at 6 15 kg? And how can
    I relate that to the doctor's machine which measured in watts?

    I hate that hour of torture and it's hard to keep up the motivation.

    My performances seemed considerably better in colder weather. When the outside temperature was under
    0° C I had all the windows open and exercised happily in minimal clothing. I seemd to tire much
    less. Now in the summer, 26°C outside with the fan directly blowing on me I'm huffing and puffing
    much sooner. I wonder if this heat-phobia that I have is normal?

    My machine had a defect, a klonking noise at each turn of the pedal which caused complaints from my
    neighbors and restricted my late-night sessions. This was particularly noticeable at lower
    resistances, obliging me to raise the resistance to 6 before I was really finished with 5. So there
    has been some discontinuity. As of Saturday the machine will be removed for servicing to correct the
    klonk. They warned me this could take up to twenty days. I'm terrified of the regression that will
    cause, although I have in the meantime stepped up practise on my real bicycle.

    I'm rambling. Thanks for your thoughts.

    Elisa Roselli Paris, France
     
    Tags:


  2. Archer

    Archer Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...

    ...

    > Is that famous resting pulse rate in the 40s that rewards trained cyclists open to everyone with
    > continued effort, or is it a matter of talent and individual morphology? Does an hour's daily
    > training get you there in the end, or do those people spend their lives pedalling? I really don't
    > think I could do more than an hour - it's already extremely contraining as I often don't get home
    > until 9pm and find myself pedalling deep into the night. Is it related to the blood pressure
    > reading or an independent variable?

    I don't think you're going to get your resting pulse rate to drop much unless you raise your
    exertion level significantly, no matter how long you exercise for at each session (within reason, of
    course; 8 hours per day would probably have a beneficial effect). If you can still talk normally
    while exercising, you are nowhere near your aerobic threshold. Everybody is different, but my
    resting HR was around 60 before I started exercising, and my max is around 185 on a bike. When I
    ride for exercise, I ride at 160 to 170 bpm, at which level there is no way I could hold a normal
    conversation. After going 2 to 3 times per week like that for a couple of months, my resting HR was
    down to about 53.

    > What improves when you put effort in, and what motivates you to continue? Appearance-wise I have
    > experienced no change whatsoever. My legs don't look a bit more muscular than in January, despite
    > having the Frankenstein Walk from stiffness at the end of my sessions. I'm no slimmer, either. In
    > the heat, I'm still getting the oedemas at the ankles from poor circulation that I had in the bad
    > old days.
    >
    > My recorded speed seemed to improve for a while. At the lower resistances I could eventually cover
    > up to 37 km in an hour. Now it's down to only about 30 km but the resistance is also higher.
    > Unfortunately I do not know exactly what the resistance is: my machine has settings from 1 to 10
    > and the maximum is supposedly 25 kg, but does that necessarily make the setting at 6 15 kg? And
    > how can I relate that to the doctor's machine which measured in watts?
    >
    > I hate that hour of torture and it's hard to keep up the motivation.

    I find it a lot easier to keep up the exercise rate when on a real bike out on the road, because
    it's so boring inside.

    ....

    --
    David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
    it's morning".

    Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.
     
  3. > would be able to control the hypertension with exercize alone. There he's talking about treating
    > it with drugs, an idea I want to resist. I feel trapped because I know things will deteriorate if
    > I _stop_ training, but they won't improve if I continue.
    >
    > However, this doctor is a very taciturn, uncommunicative type and I couldn't get many answers out
    > of him, so I turn to you highly trained people for your experiences.
    >
    > Is that famous resting pulse rate in the 40s that rewards trained cyclists open to everyone with
    > continued effort, or is it a matter of talent and individual morphology? Does an hour's daily
    > training get you there in the end, or do those people spend their lives pedalling? I really don't
    > think I could do more than an hour - it's already extremely contraining as I often don't get home
    > until 9pm and find myself pedalling deep into the night. Is it related to the blood pressure
    > reading or an independent variable?
    >

    You might want to look at your diet. Cycling never helped me lose pound
    1.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
     
  4. I don't think an MD is going to be much help for you in further lowering your blood pressure. From
    what you've written, you're adding to your stress every time you get on that infernal indoor
    trainer! You sound like a rat on a treadmill, going like mad but getting nowhere. And getting
    frustrated in the process.

    Have you considered getting out on a real bike? I'm not joking here... I think you'll find a much
    greater sense of accomplishment and well-being if you start exploring the roads around you and stop
    focusing on specific heart rates and blood pressure readings and wattages.

    There are some great places to ride on the outskirts of Paris. Lots of websites with recommended
    rides etc. There's no substitute for riding in the real world! Otherwise, why would racers spend
    nearly all of their time on the road? Nobody's basement or rec room can possibly compare with the
    world outside.

    Almost anything's a better alternative to 5 months in front of a TV!

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

    "Elisa Francesca Roselli" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Today I finally had my Stress Test at the hospital to determine what level of effort I should put
    > into my nightly hour's training on the stationary bike.
    >
    > I have had the stationary since January and have been using it devoutly in front of the TV for
    > over 5 months. I have been training at a pulse rate of 147 because that seemed to be my aerobic
    > threshold, the point at which it starts to feel "hard to talk or sing normally" as someone in this
    > forum put it. I've also been monitoring my resting pulse rate which now seems to be around 58 on a
    > good day, although it varies widely. I train for half an hour then take a very short break, two or
    > three minutes to gulp some water and mop the streaming sweat, then another similar break after 45
    > minutes, and in the last two minutes of the hour I usually sprint, letting the pulse rate go way
    > up into the anaerobic zone, because this seems to improve the recovery reading taken in the minute
    > after I stop.
    >
    > The cardiologist measured a starting blood pressure of 15/9, which he said was high. The test
    > finished at 162 pulses per minute and a tension rate of 24/8. His recommendation was that I train
    > at around 135-140 pulses per minute, blood pressure around 21/8, rather than my current 145-147 at
    > 22/8. The energy produced at this rate is 120 watts, but my own machine doesn't measure watts so I
    > cannot track that parameter.
    >
    > I'm disappointed that after 6 months of steady training I should still be in a hypertension zone
    > of 15/9, and that my resting rate doesn't seem to have improved much. The doctor told me,
    > moreover, that it is unlikely that the blood pressure will go on improving beyond its current
    > level, since there is a bottoming out effect. I don't know what it was before I started training,
    > but on at least two occasions it alarmed doctors with readings up in the 18s, so perhaps there has
    > been some improvement. On the other hand, I had hoped that improvement would be steady and that I
    > would be able to control the hypertension with exercize alone. There he's talking about treating
    > it with drugs, an idea I want to resist. I feel trapped because I know things will deteriorate if
    > I _stop_ training, but they won't improve if I continue.
    >
    > However, this doctor is a very taciturn, uncommunicative type and I couldn't get many answers out
    > of him, so I turn to you highly trained people for your experiences.
    >
    > Is that famous resting pulse rate in the 40s that rewards trained cyclists open to everyone with
    > continued effort, or is it a matter of talent and individual morphology? Does an hour's daily
    > training get you there in the end, or do those people spend their lives pedalling? I really don't
    > think I could do more than an hour - it's already extremely contraining as I often don't get home
    > until 9pm and find myself pedalling deep into the night. Is it related to the blood pressure
    > reading or an independent variable?
    >
    > What improves when you put effort in, and what motivates you to continue? Appearance-wise I have
    > experienced no change whatsoever. My legs don't look a bit more muscular than in January, despite
    > having the Frankenstein Walk from stiffness at the end of my sessions. I'm no slimmer, either. In
    > the heat, I'm still getting the oedemas at the ankles from poor circulation that I had in the bad
    > old days.
    >
    > My recorded speed seemed to improve for a while. At the lower resistances I could eventually cover
    > up to 37 km in an hour. Now it's down to only about 30 km but the resistance is also higher.
    > Unfortunately I do not know exactly what the resistance is: my machine has settings from 1 to 10
    > and the maximum is supposedly 25 kg, but does that necessarily make the setting at 6 15 kg? And
    > how can I relate that to the doctor's machine which measured in watts?
    >
    > I hate that hour of torture and it's hard to keep up the motivation.
    >
    > My performances seemed considerably better in colder weather. When the outside temperature was
    > under 0° C I had all the windows open and exercised happily in minimal clothing. I seemd to tire
    > much less. Now in the summer, 26°C outside with the fan directly blowing on me I'm huffing and
    > puffing much sooner. I wonder if this heat-phobia that I have is normal?
    >
    > My machine had a defect, a klonking noise at each turn of the pedal which caused complaints from
    > my neighbors and restricted my late-night sessions. This was particularly noticeable at lower
    > resistances, obliging me to raise the resistance to 6 before I was really finished with 5. So
    > there has been some discontinuity. As of Saturday the machine will be removed for servicing to
    > correct the klonk. They warned me this could take up to twenty days. I'm terrified of the
    > regression that will cause, although I have in the meantime stepped up practise on my real
    > bicycle.
    >
    > I'm rambling. Thanks for your thoughts.
    >
    > Elisa Roselli Paris, France
     
  5. Joel Solomon

    Joel Solomon Guest

    Weight loss is probably more important than exercise for controlling hypertension. If you aren't
    doing this already, dieting should be part of your regimen.

    Joel Solomon, MD
     
  6. Personally, I can't stand stationary bikes. Part of the reason I like cycling is going places and
    being outside. You sound miserable on the stationary bike so getting on the real bike is probably a
    good idea to start anyway.

    If you want to lose weight, you also have to do the diet thing. I have not found cycling
    particularly effective at helping me lose weight. Even when I was normally riding 450 km per week, I
    still had a little fat roll on my gut (though my legs were noticably fat free). Jogging does seem to
    work for that; probably because it's a lot more aerobic. When it was effective for me, I was running
    8 km every two days at a 6 minute km pace.

    As far as cyclists getting their resting pulse into the 40's, those are young guys who train hours
    per day and they train very hard; much harder than would be safe for someone of your medical
    limitations. You can, of course, increase your training gradually. This will help. It's best to
    follow the doctor's recomendation for target heart rate but you can increase the amount of time you
    spend riding. Riding for your commute is a good thing. You might also try riding a few extra km's
    after work on your way home.
     
  7. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    Bill Davidson <[email protected]> wrote:

    >As far as cyclists getting their resting pulse into the 40's, those are young guys who train hours
    >per day and they train very hard;

    Hey thanks - but I'm not THAT young (45) ... It wasn't all that long ago I could get my pulse into
    the high 30s (taken lying still in bed before getting up, of course).

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
     
  8. "Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > would be able to control the hypertension with exercize alone. There he's talking about treating
    > > it with drugs, an idea I want to resist. I feel trapped because I know things will deteriorate
    > > if I _stop_ training, but they won't improve if I continue.
    > >
    > > However, this doctor is a very taciturn, uncommunicative type and I couldn't get many answers
    > > out of him, so I turn to you highly trained people for your experiences.
    > >
    > > Is that famous resting pulse rate in the 40s that rewards trained cyclists open to everyone with
    > > continued effort, or is it a matter of talent and individual morphology? Does an hour's daily
    > > training get you there in the end, or do those people spend their lives pedalling? I really
    > > don't think I could do more than an hour - it's already extremely contraining as I often don't
    > > get home until 9pm and find myself pedalling deep into the night. Is it related to the blood
    > > pressure reading or an independent variable?
    > >
    >
    > You might want to look at your diet. Cycling never helped me lose pound
    > 1.

    And I thought I was the only one! :)
     
  9. > You might want to look at your diet. Cycling never helped me lose pound
    > 1.

    Probably because, like me, you used cycling as a way to eat as much as you wanted and not gain
    weight. As soon as I realized that, for lunch, I didn't have to keep eating until I didn't feel like
    eating more, what do you know, I started losing weight! Amazing what doing nothing more than
    skipping the chips will do over time.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
     
  10. Brent Hugh

    Brent Hugh Guest

    Elisa Francesca Roselli <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > I'm disappointed that after 6 months of steady training I should still be in a hypertension zone
    > of 15/9, and that my resting rate doesn't seem to have improved much. The doctor told me,
    > moreover, that it is unlikely that the blood pressure will go on improving beyond its current
    > level, since there is a bottoming out effect. I don't know what it was before I

    First off, I have to say that that for riding a stationary bike an hour a day for 5 months you
    should get some kind of medal. I, too, tried to do an hour a day on "machines" (stationary bike,
    nordic ski machine, etc.) for much the same reasons you are--after finding out it would take about
    an hour of exercise a day to have any real effect on blood pressure or weight--but even at my best I
    don't think I was really doing it more than 4 or 5 days a week for a few months.

    I find that I can "enjoy" riding a machine indoors, watching TV, for 15 minutes or maybe up to 30
    minutes a day. But riding for 60 minutes is pure torture.

    On the other hand, I find a ten or twelve mile ride (outside) to be very short--this is about what I
    would do in an hour when I first started. A two or three hour ride is a nice ride and a long one
    might be five or six hours. Even a five or six hour ride isn't nearly as
    psychologically tortuous as a one-hour stationary bike ride. Getting out is just fun and
    invigorating.

    One "problem" I've noticed since starting to ride outdoors is that I have a much lower tolerance for
    riding indoor machines. My machines went almost entirely neglected last winter. I was out riding,
    walking, or jogging most every day, though. With the right clothing I'm pretty comfortable bicycling
    with temperatures down to the freezing point, but if I feel it's too cold to ride I just (speed)
    walk or jog instead.

    By the way, unlike some other people, I've lost about 35 pounds on the "bicycle diet". That is
    basically, avoid all fast food and generally eat a decently healthy diet plus ride at least 10 miles
    a day with longer ride(s) on the weekend. I have noticed that I maintain weight but don't lose
    unless the longer rides are in the mix.

    Keep in mind that, even if your weight hasn't chnaged much, in the last five months you have without
    a doubt increased your muscle mass and decreased your percentage of body fat.

    You might find you enjoy adding speed walking and/or jogging to your routine. After cycling for a
    year or two (and never running or jogging) I found that could jog for an hour. But my feet and back
    couldn't take it (15 minutes 3x a week--yes, an hour every day--no way). Then I found out about
    speed walking:

    http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/hl/fit/card/speedwalking.html

    If you're pressed for time, a good approach (which I see you're already starting to take) is to walk
    and/or cycle to and from work. Then maybe squeeze in even a 5, 10 or 15 minute walk during lunch or
    some other break.

    Building this kind of exercise breaks built the day helps invigorate and energize (at least, I find
    it so) rather than frustrate and tire. For most people, the only way to get in lifelong, daily
    exercise is to weave it into the daily routine in this way.

    Then when you get home, you might find that, to finish your daily 60 minutes of exercise, you only
    need 15 or 20 minutes on the stationary bike. If the commuting walks/rides are relatively moderate
    (because you don't want to be sweaty at work) then maybe the stationary bike ride is shorter, but
    more vigorous.

    As far as suggested heart rate when exercising: If your doctor is giving you specific, personal
    medical advice here I would take it VERY seriously (i.e., if he's saying, "Because of your specific
    medical conditions it will be dangerous for you to let your heart rate go above X"). It may be that
    in your particular situation, letting your blood pressure rise above a certain point, even for a
    short period, would be quite harmful.

    On the other hand, if he's just giving generalized advice ("This here article says that the 'ideal'
    exercise heartrate is 60% of VO2Max") then I would take it with a LARGE grain of salt. For the
    typical person there is no one single 'ideal' or 'best' heartrate--you get different benefits from
    spending time during your exercise period at a variety of different heart rates.

    Typical medical advice and studies are designed around the "average person" whose idea of a
    vigorous bout of exercise is walking all the way from the TV room to the kitchen to grab a beer.
    Getting this kind of person to go for a 20-minute stroll 3 or 4 times a week is a marvelous medical
    breakthrough. But the ideal exercise program for "beer walking man" and for you are not necessarily
    one and the same.

    As others have pointed out, a person who always exercises at a very moderate level has a very
    difficult time moving the overall fitness level up. Moderate exercise is NOT necessarily better for
    losing weight, either. A good explanation of the issues involved:

    http://www.cptips.com/weight.htm

    You might experiment with "interval training". That is simply alternating periods of moderate
    exercise with periods of harder exercise. The periods when you work harder can be as short as 10 or
    15 seconds.

    http://www.ivillage.com/diet/experts/wlcoach/articles/0,,165562_1598,00.html

    Resting heart rate: The "real" way to check resting heart rate is in the morning, just after
    awaking, and before getting up or even rolling over in bed. This way, my resting pulse is in the
    mid-40s. Sitting around the house in the afternoon it is more like 60 or 66. Certainly, with 6
    months of exercise, your resting heart rate has improved, and if you continue to exercise it will
    continue to improve.

    Finally, about blood pressure: Personally, I would take whatever steps are necessary to keep blood
    pressure VERY well under control. Not at the lower end of high BP. Not in the borderline high BP
    range. Not near the bottom of the borderline high BP range. But rather, comfortably within the
    normal range.

    From what I know about the subject (which is far from everything), more and more research has been
    pointing to the wisdom of this approach. The long-term benefits of keeping BP very well controlled
    are pretty substantial (I wish *I'd* known this 20 years ago . . . ). Two things to look at:

    http://www.drbobmartin.com/2003k_04_02news01.html http://future.newsday.com/2/kidn7.htm

    Two reasons to keep tight control of blood pressure are:

    * High BP is a vicious cycle, where higher BP gradually damages the very mechanisms that control
    BP, thus leading (gradually) to ever-higher BP. Particularly, the delicate filtration elements
    in the kidneys are very susceptible to damage by high BP; damage to the kidneys makes it
    harder for them to do their job of regulating BP. The earlier you break up this vicious cycle,
    the better.

    * Damage from high BP is cumulative and progressive but not obvious immediately--it may be a
    decade or two before you realize the benefits of the BP control regimen you start now.

    Better physical fitness helps reduce blood pressure. But if you have some underlying condition that
    raises your blood pressure (as you apparently do . . . ) that condition can raise BP far more than
    exercise alone is able to reduce it.

    So, you have to think of exercise and weight reduction as helping to REDUCE the amount of medication
    you need to take to control your BP. But exercise/fitness does not eliminate the medication
    altogether.

    Blood pressure tends to increase with age, and so medication levels for BP tend to increase with
    time. So if exercise even helps you to keep at the same medication level for an extended period of
    time, that is a very valuable contribution indeed.

    Even being at olympic athlete fitness level would not be enough to completely eliminate high BP in
    many (most?) people with high BP. So you have to accept that being fit HELPS with your blood
    pressure, reduces the amount of medication you must take for it, and has a lot of other benefits
    (including health benefits) beyond simple blood pressure control.

    Exercise is an important part of the answer, but not the entire answer.

    Hope this helps!

    --Brent

    Elisa Francesca Roselli <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > Today I finally had my Stress Test at the hospital to determine what level of effort I should put
    > into my nightly hour's training on the stationary bike.
    >
    > I have had the stationary since January and have been using it devoutly in front of the TV for
    > over 5 months. I have been training at a pulse rate of 147 because that seemed to be my aerobic
    > threshold, the point at which it starts to feel "hard to talk or sing normally" as someone in this
    > forum put it. I've also been monitoring my resting pulse rate which now seems to be around 58 on a
    > good day, although it varies widely. I train for half an hour then take a very short break, two or
    > three minutes to gulp some water and mop the streaming sweat, then another similar break after 45
    > minutes, and in the last two minutes of the hour I usually sprint, letting the pulse rate go way
    > up into the anaerobic zone, because this seems to improve the recovery reading taken in the minute
    > after I stop.
    >
    > The cardiologist measured a starting blood pressure of 15/9, which he said was high. The test
    > finished at 162 pulses per minute and a tension rate of 24/8. His recommendation was that I train
    > at around 135-140 pulses per minute, blood pressure around 21/8, rather than my current 145-147 at
    > 22/8. The energy produced at this rate is 120 watts, but my own machine doesn't measure watts so I
    > cannot track that parameter.
    >
    > I'm disappointed that after 6 months of steady training I should still be in a hypertension zone
    > of 15/9, and that my resting rate doesn't seem to have improved much. The doctor told me,
    > moreover, that it is unlikely that the blood pressure will go on improving beyond its current
    > level, since there is a bottoming out effect. I don't know what it was before I started training,
    > but on at least two occasions it alarmed doctors with readings up in the 18s, so perhaps there has
    > been some improvement. On the other hand, I had hoped that improvement would be steady and that I
    > would be able to control the hypertension with exercize alone. There he's talking about treating
    > it with drugs, an idea I want to resist. I feel trapped because I know things will deteriorate if
    > I _stop_ training, but they won't improve if I continue.
    >
    > However, this doctor is a very taciturn, uncommunicative type and I couldn't get many answers out
    > of him, so I turn to you highly trained people for your experiences.
    >
    > Is that famous resting pulse rate in the 40s that rewards trained cyclists open to everyone with
    > continued effort, or is it a matter of talent and individual morphology? Does an hour's daily
    > training get you there in the end, or do those people spend their lives pedalling? I really don't
    > think I could do more than an hour - it's already extremely contraining as I often don't get home
    > until 9pm and find myself pedalling deep into the night. Is it related to the blood pressure
    > reading or an independent variable?
    >
    > What improves when you put effort in, and what motivates you to continue? Appearance-wise I have
    > experienced no change whatsoever. My legs don't look a bit more muscular than in January, despite
    > having the Frankenstein Walk from stiffness at the end of my sessions. I'm no slimmer, either. In
    > the heat, I'm still getting the oedemas at the ankles from poor circulation that I had in the bad
    > old days.
    >
    > My recorded speed seemed to improve for a while. At the lower resistances I could eventually cover
    > up to 37 km in an hour. Now it's down to only about 30 km but the resistance is also higher.
    > Unfortunately I do not know exactly what the resistance is: my machine has settings from 1 to 10
    > and the maximum is supposedly 25 kg, but does that necessarily make the setting at 6 15 kg? And
    > how can I relate that to the doctor's machine which measured in watts?
    >
    > I hate that hour of torture and it's hard to keep up the motivation.
    >
    . . .
    > Elisa Roselli Paris, France
     
  11. Jmk

    Jmk Guest

    Yeah, I finally broke down and got a Palm Pilot program called BalanceLog. It allows you to track
    both diet and exercise (and pick the the nutrition goals that you would like to use -- USDA,
    Amaerican Heart Association, High Protein/Low Carb., etc. -- including custom). I've lost quite a
    bit of weight on it but I still have a ways to go! :)

    Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
    >>You might want to look at your diet. Cycling never helped me lose pound
    >>1.
    >
    >
    > Probably because, like me, you used cycling as a way to eat as much as you wanted and not gain
    > weight. As soon as I realized that, for lunch, I didn't have to keep eating until I didn't feel
    > like eating more, what do you know, I started losing weight! Amazing what doing nothing more than
    > skipping the chips will do over time.
    >
    > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...