Overdoing It and Mental Fatigue

[Tony Raven]

Peter Clinch wrote on 01/08/2006 09:07 +0100:
>
> There were times on our recent tour
> when I wasn't having much fun (mainly the heat), but that's not a reason
> to drop touring completely.
>

Was it hot on your recent tour then? Funny you didn't mention it in
your TR ;-)


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]>typed

> > I have no problem with young spunks who need an outlet for their excess
> > hormones and need a short burst of masochistic activity to exhaust
> > themselves with, but that is not recreational cycling.

> It might not be /your/ chosen recreation, but it is nonetheless
> recreational cycling.

Not everyone would choose Audax rides as their recreation; many here do,
but those cycling *huge* distances sure know about endurance. Audax is
not racing...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Was it hot on your recent tour then? Funny you didn't mention it in
> your TR ;-)

Gad, it was h... oooh, hang on, what does that flashing red light on the
humourometer mean...? ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Tony Raven]

Peter Clinch wrote on 01/08/2006 09:49 +0100:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> Was it hot on your recent tour then? Funny you didn't mention it in
>> your TR ;-)
>
> Gad, it was h... oooh, hang on, what does that flashing red light on the
> humourometer mean...? ;-)
>

Did you meet a lady called Roos while you were there - seems she was
touring in the same area at the same time from her TR ;-)

(never one to miss the opportunity to labour a joke ;-) )

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Christopher Harrison]

Oh, don't get me wrong -- I curse the wind a blue streak and slog up
those hills; but it's still fun It's a challenge. It's enjoyable
(for me; and many others) to work myself hard and push my limits.
Perhaps not quite "recreational", as you say; but we needn't get bogged
down with semantics... I'm training to be a racer. Cycling is my
passion; and I've got to pander to my ambition, or I wouldn't be me!

Besides, don't forget: you have to come down from those hills sometime
or other! Descents are worth the hard slog


brigodon [email protected] wrote:
> I had to check the name of this newsgroup I'm reading this post in, and
> yes, it is ...."uk.rec.cycling".
>
> Am I correct that the "rec" bit is short for "recreational"?
>
> Am I wrong in suggesting that this post and many of the replies might
> be better discussed in a racing group? Does "recreational" no longer
> imply "enjoyable leasure activity"?
>
> What are you training for? Are you primarily a commuter, tourer, racer,
> or something else?
>
> I've been through the training for increasing the pain and
> self-punishment threshold thing and woke up suddenly one day and
> realisied that I had completely sacrificed my pleasure and love for
> cycling in return for the short-lived high and kudos of competition and
> winning the odd time trial.
>
> I quit and have only recently got back into it with a grim
> determination that I will only cycle for fun and pleasure. Pain is only
> to be tolerated in very small doses and is to be endured only as a
> means to increase fitness to maximise the fun.
>
> Recreational cycling is it's own reward, there is no supreme
> motivational effort required. The prospect of pedalling a nice bike in
> pleasant surroundings, the freedom to roam outside the narrow confines
> of the herd,and at times, battling with adverse weather, but most of
> all enjoying the physical fitness that even moderate biking brings, is
> why I cycle.
>
> I cycle because I like it, and I do it when the urge becomes
> irresistable, which is often. There are times when the urge seems to
> disappear so I wait till it comes back....which it does. I don't count
> miles cycled or feet climbed. I do have a HRM that I rarely use and
> then only for amusement. I pretty well eat what I want and have no
> concerns about calorie intake/expenditure.
>
> Am I an oddity?
>
> Does anyone else cycle for pure pleasure?
>
> I have no problem with young spunks who need an outlet for their excess
> hormones and need a short burst of masochistic activity to exhaust
> themselves with, but that is not recreational cycling.

 

[Christopher Harrison]

It was a cloudy day -- some sun, but not hot/sunstroke weather. I've
had sunstroke too, it's not nice; but it wasn't that... As for liquid,
erm, you'll probably all scream at me for this, but I generally don't
take much. For a trip like that, I'll drink about 250ml water before I
leave, 500ml during the course of the trip, and another 250 immediately
when I get back -- about a litre. On longer trips (70ish miles), I'll
take a whole litre with me. Then thereafter, when I get home, I drink
more throughout the day to replenish what I've lost (just water,
sometimes juice; I don't drink alcohol very often/at all, so that's not
a problem).

Whilst I obviously lose a lot of water on the course of such a trip, I
don't generally get thirsty and this method seems to work for me. I
find that if I drink much more, it kind of just sloshes around inside
me; it can even make me feel nauseous if I've had too much... There's
also the added problem of, erm, "having to stop all time"!


Simon Brooke wrote:
> What was the weather like? Is it possible you had some degree of
> sunstroke? Is it possible you seriously overheated? Did you drink enough
> liquid?
>
> I would have thought for 45 miles at that intensity, in hot weather, the
> standard two bidons one tends to carry may not be enough.
>
> I find sunstroke makes me feel very dopey and disinclined to physical
> effort for several days.

 

[Arthur Clune]

Christopher Harrison wrote:
>
> Whilst I obviously lose a lot of water on the course of such a trip, I
> don't generally get thirsty and this method seems to work for me. I
> find that if I drink much more, it kind of just sloshes around inside

Don't drink too much at once. Small sips very frequently. Not being thirsty
doesn't mean owt. By the time you are thirsty your performance will be
suffering. Unless it's very cold+wet two 750ml bottles would be what I'd
drink on a ride like that.

--
Arthur Clune

 

[David Martin]

Christopher Harrison wrote:
> It was a cloudy day -- some sun, but not hot/sunstroke weather.

Is it something else that you thought was unconnected?

I was fixing my boat using some epoxy resin [1] - the warning said it
would make you sensitive if you got skin contact. Needless to say I was
less than careful (I mean, how harmful can this over the counter stuff
be?)

It was a cloudy but warm day and I pootled out with a child on the
child seat 5-6 miles to the local town and back to run the messages. I
got back and found I was sunburned. When they said sensitive, they
meant it..

It has taken me over 5 years to get back to normal sensitivity after
that.

...d


[1] West System for those who want to know.

 

[Alex]

Arthur Clune wrote:
> Christopher Harrison wrote:
> >
> > Whilst I obviously lose a lot of water on the course of such a trip, I
> > don't generally get thirsty and this method seems to work for me. I
> > find that if I drink much more, it kind of just sloshes around inside
>
> Don't drink too much at once. Small sips very frequently. Not being thirsty
> doesn't mean owt. By the time you are thirsty your performance will be
> suffering. Unless it's very cold+wet two 750ml bottles would be what I'd
> drink on a ride like that.

I sweat like 10 sweating things (mainly because I've only just started
cycling again to improve fitness). 40 miles on both Saturday and Sunday
and I probably drank 4 liters of water each day during the rides, plus
2 cups of coffee each day (I'd recommend the cafe in Thames Barrier
Park near the Woolwich Ferry).

During the London to Cambridge the weekend before (including a 20 mile
cycle to the start from SW London) I drank close to 6 liters of water.

If it comes out dark then you didn't drink enough.

-Alex

 

[Bronzie]

> Am I correct that the "rec" bit is short for "recreational"?
>
> Am I wrong in suggesting that this post and many of the replies might
> be better discussed in a racing group? Does "recreational" no longer
> imply "enjoyable leasure activity"?


I posted to rec.bicycles.racing once. I got called a "dumbass" or some
such by someone claiming to be Jennifer Lopez's proctologist and vowed
never to return. URC is a good deal more friendly and I enjoy the
broad width of topics that come up.

I ride my bike (and post here) because I enjoy it. Whether that be
pootling to the pub (too rarely), touring, audaxing, riding a club run,
bunch racing or time trialling. It's all recreation to me.

 

[Al C-F]

brigodon [email protected] wrote:

>
> I had to check the name of this newsgroup I'm reading this post in, and
> yes, it is ...."uk.rec.cycling".
>
> Am I correct that the "rec" bit is short for "recreational"?
>
> Am I wrong in suggesting that this post and many of the replies might
> be better discussed in a racing group? Does "recreational" no longer
> imply "enjoyable leasure activity"?
>

Relax. The thread is still about cycling.

Come back in a few days when it's morphed into directions for setting up
the latest newsreader for linux, and then complain.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
Christopher Harrison ('[email protected]') wrote:

> It was a cloudy day -- some sun, but not hot/sunstroke weather. I've
> had sunstroke too, it's not nice; but it wasn't that... As for liquid,
> erm, you'll probably all scream at me for this, but I generally don't
> take much. For a trip like that, I'll drink about 250ml water before I
> leave, 500ml during the course of the trip, and another 250 immediately
> when I get back -- about a litre. On longer trips (70ish miles), I'll
> take a whole litre with me. Then thereafter, when I get home, I drink
> more throughout the day to replenish what I've lost (just water,
> sometimes juice; I don't drink alcohol very often/at all, so that's not
> a problem).

As an experiment, try drinking /much/ more during your next long fast
ride, see if it makes a difference. Getting dehydrated isn't good for
you, and may explain your symptoms.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.

 

[Christopher Harrison]

Got my mojo back Up the hill, 1000 feet, in a high wind with no
trouble -- with ease, in fact -- and to reward myself, food for when I
got back
I'd really like to thank everyone for their comments and helpful,
friendly advice. It's really been most encouraging; and hopefully, this
whole thread will be useful to others.


Christopher Harrison wrote:
> I like this group Thanks guys -- I feel strangely re-motivated!
> Perhaps tomorrow, or the weekend, holds something special in store...

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]>typed
>
> > > I have no problem with young spunks who need an outlet for their excess
> > > hormones and need a short burst of masochistic activity to exhaust
> > > themselves with, but that is not recreational cycling.
>
> > It might not be /your/ chosen recreation, but it is nonetheless
> > recreational cycling.
>
> Not everyone would choose Audax rides as their recreation; many here do,
> but those cycling *huge* distances sure know about endurance. Audax is
> not racing...

Although over on acf today, Mr. P. Chadwick was observed to utter that
the difference between cyclosportives and audaxes is that riders in the
former pretend they're racing while audaxers pretend they're not

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Bandersnatch? I would never have guessed.

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Dave Larrington <[email protected]>typed


> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > Peter Clinch <[email protected]>typed
> >
> > > > I have no problem with young spunks who need an outlet for their
> > > > excess
> > > > hormones and need a short burst of masochistic activity to exhaust
> > > > themselves with, but that is not recreational cycling.
> >
> > > It might not be /your/ chosen recreation, but it is nonetheless
> > > recreational cycling.
> >
> > Not everyone would choose Audax rides as their recreation; many here do,
> > but those cycling *huge* distances sure know about endurance. Audax is
> > not racing...

> Although over on acf today, Mr. P. Chadwick was observed to utter that
> the difference between cyclosportives and audaxes is that riders in the
> former pretend they're racing while audaxers pretend they're not

Nobody who saw me doing an Audax could accuse me of pretending to race...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[brigodon [email protected]]

Tony Raven wrote:
> brigodon [email protected] wrote on 01/08/2006 08:55 +0100:
> >
> > I had to check the name of this newsgroup I'm reading this post in, and
> > yes, it is ...."uk.rec.cycling".
> >
> > Am I correct that the "rec" bit is short for "recreational"?
> >
> > Am I wrong in suggesting that this post and many of the replies might
> > be better discussed in a racing group? Does "recreational" no longer
> > imply "enjoyable leasure activity"?
> >
>
> I am correct in saying the "uk" bit is short for "United Kingdom of
> Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and if I am not mistaken you are
> posting from New Zealand. But you too are welcome here.
>
>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.169.220.57
> inetnum: 202.169.192.0 - 202.169.223.255
> netname: WORLDNET
> descr: WORLDNET NZ LIMITED
> descr: INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER
> descr: AUCKLAND
> country: NZ
>
> --
> Tony
>


This is the second time that this person has made an issue of my
geographical location. I don't get the point, but the first time I took
it as an unintended faux pas, this time makes me suspect this prolific
poster has a touch of parochialism that is surely not intended to be
malicious but might easily be taken as such.

Publishing the details of my internet connection is childish and
offensive and cannot imagine a motive .

About the OP's problem....great to see you've got your enthusiasim
back so soon, it was likely dehydration as has been suggested. Now you
can move on.

I'm pleased to see some reaction to my post (apart from the above). It
might help to warn some younger readers that there are many things to
be found in cycling and it is too easy to lose touch with some of them.

 

[Clive George]

"brigodon [email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> > Am I wrong in suggesting that this post and many of the replies might
>> > be better discussed in a racing group? Does "recreational" no longer
>> > imply "enjoyable leasure activity"?
>
>> I am correct in saying the "uk" bit is short for "United Kingdom of
>> Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and if I am not mistaken you are
>> posting from New Zealand. But you too are welcome here
>
> This is the second time that this person has made an issue of my
> geographical location. I don't get the point

The point is that this group is as much a UK group as it is recreational.
That is, if you're going to complain about people posting about racing,
you're being a bit hypocritical posting from NZ.

Me? Like Tony, I don't mind where people come from or what sort of cycling
they're posting about.

clive

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
brigodon [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> Publishing the details of my internet connection is childish and
> offensive>

Why? It's public information.

> and cannot imagine a motive .

You were being pedantic about 'rec', he was taking the **** by being
pedantic about 'uk'. Have you had a SOH bypass?

 

[Tony Raven]

brigodon [email protected] wrote on 01/08/2006 21:02 +0100:
>
> This is the second time that this person has made an issue of my
> geographical location. I don't get the point, but the first time I took
> it as an unintended faux pas, this time makes me suspect this prolific
> poster has a touch of parochialism that is surely not intended to be
> malicious but might easily be taken as such.

Not parochial at all. It hardly seemed appropriate for you to complain
that someone's post is not "recreational" when your post is not "uk".
In my mind you are both welcome to post despite it being nominally named
uk.rec.cycling. Hey we even talk about cycling here occasionally.

>
> Publishing the details of my internet connection is childish and
> offensive and cannot imagine a motive .

Its hardly a secret - its all there in your headers for anyone to read -
and apart from geography, what I posted doesn't tell anyone much worth
knowing anyway.

>
> I'm pleased to see some reaction to my post (apart from the above). It
> might help to warn some younger readers that there are many things to
> be found in cycling and it is too easy to lose touch with some of them.
>

Glad to see you've come round from your original complaint.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Dave Larrington <[email protected]>typed
>
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > Peter Clinch <[email protected]>typed
> > >
> > > > > I have no problem with young spunks who need an outlet for their
> > > > > excess
> > > > > hormones and need a short burst of masochistic activity to exhaust
> > > > > themselves with, but that is not recreational cycling.
> > >
> > > > It might not be /your/ chosen recreation, but it is nonetheless
> > > > recreational cycling.
> > >
> > > Not everyone would choose Audax rides as their recreation; many here do,
> > > but those cycling *huge* distances sure know about endurance. Audax is
> > > not racing...
>
> > Although over on acf today, Mr. P. Chadwick was observed to utter that
> > the difference between cyclosportives and audaxes is that riders in the
> > former pretend they're racing while audaxers pretend they're not
>
> Nobody who saw me doing an Audax could accuse me of pretending to race...

Nor me. Phixer Phil, however, is Different...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
It is impossible to eat a banana without looking like a tw*t.