Reborn

[Sr. Tortuga]

This is a long one - bear with me

About 7 years ago, I was extremely active – I’d just graduated from college, where I’d been running 70 miles a week, had run a marathon in under 4 hours, and was also a member of the crew team. After college I took up cycling and was riding 150-170 miles a week. I’d just made the decision to train for my first triathlon (was a state-ranked swimmer in high school) when on my morning drive to work a woman ran a red light hit me at 50 mph. It was 6 months before I could do any sort of physical activity and I put on a great deal of weight.

Over the past 7 years I’ve had a few aborted attempts to start running again, but the pounding on my knees was too much. It probably didn’t help that since the accident I’ve put on roughly 100 lbs (now 5’7, 265 lbs). I also dabbled with swimming from time to time but always found it too inconvenient, time-wise – busy social life, girlfriend, band, long hours at work, and so on.

About a year ago I started working at a new organization that happens to have shower and locker facilities. Since I’ve been here I started walking to and from work on most days – a round trip of six miles. I walk in, shower, do the work thing, and then change back to my ‘walking clothes’ and walk home. Next month I’ll be moving about 10 miles away, too far to walk, and have decided it was time to fix up that road bike that’s been glaring at me in the corner all those years and start riding again. I’ m now entertaining fantasies of training for a century, losing some of the weight, and so on…

I guess, what I’m wondering is – well I’m wondering a couple things.

1. It’s been seven years since I’ve been on my bike. Is the saying about “like riding a bicycle” really true? Does it apply to high-end road bikes?
2. Has anyone had a similar experience of returning to cycling after so much time away from an active lifestyle?
3. I have a number of reasons for returning to cycling – a green commute, general health, mental well being – weight loss is the not the only, or even primary, incentive. However, it’s definitely one of the reasons – I wouldn’t mind being a good 50 lbs lighter. Without a drastic change in diet, what kind of weight loss can I expect riding 20 miles a day during the week plus 30-50 miles long ride on the weekends?
4. My tentative goals are to ride a metric century before the end of the year and to ride a full century by May of next year – I’m considering the following training schedule, adapted from a schedule I found simple but effective during my running days:
   
   Monday – 20 miles (commute)
   Tuesday – 25 miles (commute + hills)
   Wednesday – 20 mile (commute)
   Thursday – 25 mile (commute + sprints)
   Friday – 20 miles (commute)
   Saturday – 30-50 miles or more (long ride)
   Sunday - Rest
   
   Are these goals attainable, using this kind of schedule? Are there any major flaws in a schedule like this?
5. How will breaking up my daily mileage (10 and 10 as opposed to 20 straight) affect my progress towards training for longer distances?
6. Is any of this realistic?
   
   Many, many thanks for any advice or input!
   
   Best,
   Sr. Tortuga

 

[Froze]

1) The first question doesn't compute.
2) no, but I'm sure someone else has.
3) during the first week you won't notice any weight loss, your metabolism needs to get started again which will take about 3 to 4 weeks.
4) The schedule is fine...IF...it's not too many mile for you to start at, it seems high especially considering you've been off the bike for 7 years. I would cut that down by half then increase the mileages 10% per week...BUT...if you know you can handle then do it.
5) if you want train for a century then I suggest you follow the plan at this site: Training for a Century Ride

6) why not?

 

[madmadmax]

1/ yes its true.
2/take it easy and don't push your self too hard give your self time to get there.
give it a trial ride on a weekend get sumone to leave you there and then you go home remember to check times on departure and arrive.

 

[quenya]

1. Yes it's true but you may need to adjust the fit of the bike, if you had been in an aggressive drop 7 years ago that probably will not work for you now. Also gearing may be an issue if you're doing climbing the standard crank and 11-25 that a 165 lb cyclist is happy on may defeat the 265 lb cyclist, consider a compact crank and a 12-27 or 12-28 cassette.

2. College/work/wedding curtailed my riding for years I got near 200 lbs, way too much for me, last June I started running in November I ran my first marathon and was 160, this June I did an event called Climb to Kaiser, 155 mi with 14,500' climbing including three VERY TOUGH climbs I finished just outside of the top 10% of riders.

3. Adding 150 miles a week is going to force a drastic change in your eating habits if you don't consume A LOT more food you will not be able to sustain the efforts long. you really have to see food as fuel not as some "enemy" trying to make you fat, food, as nutrition, didn't put on your weight a sedentary lifestyle, and maybe too many calories, did. Eat sensibly and avoid foods paced with calories but few other nutritious properties, pay attention to protein, good fats, healthy grains, and skip pizza and fast food, or whatever your particular weakness is.

4&5 the plan looks good 10 miles will be pretty easy pretty soon so with your 'two a days' you can focus on say pedal mechanics and easy gear high cadence fake sprints, or tempo pace, in the afternoons do harder big gear tempo and later maybe 2x20min intervals. For real aerobic and endurance building it's best to do a long ride all at once. I'd consider taking a rest day during the week to get two rides on the weekend if you can.

6. That all seems realistic if you're motivated and commit to it. the shock of it when you start may be tough, but keep at it and remember it will feel bad for a little while then you'll feel so much better for it. When I lost the weight I dieted strictly and exercised hard. It seemed impossible at first but now I am in control of my body and I just do the things that are my habits now. I eat a lot but I work out a lot. If I do decide to have a splurge on 'bad' food it's okay because I am doing really well most of the time.

 

[swampy1970]

I used to race back in the 80's and 90's and took pretty much 10 years off the bike and went from being 145lbs to almost 230lbs. At 5ft10, 230lbs aint the lightest... It does take a while to get back into the swing of things again but the weight does start to come off pretty quickly.

You never forget how to ride a bike or what makes it so much fun. Unfortunately, when you get back on after a long period off the bike, your brain still remembers silly things that long 8% hills should be ridden in 39x21 and not something piddly like 34x25.

One thing that seems to happen with me is that when I'm in "training mode" I tend to automatically steer clear of junk food, beer and excessive food. I'll vary the diet and slowly reduce to the point where training sessions start to get hard at the end due to lack of glycogen or weight loss in continually more than 3lbs a week - then I'll add a bit to the plate each day and take if from there. Conversely, when there's nothing to train I can quite easily put down a 12 pack of Sierra, a monster bag of chips and other garbage per day. Mmmmm donuts.

 

[lanierb]

I don't think the training end will be the hard part and, compared to what you have been doing, anything is a HUGE improvement so I wouldn't worry about whether it's the optimal workout or not. After a few weeks you will be able to keep up this schedule, though you might make some days harder than others, and this schedule will eventually make a century feel easy.

As for losing weight, you will be burning something like 800-1000 calories extra per day on your commute. If you don't change your diet at all you would lose 2 lbs/week at that rate. You will probably find yourself wanting to eat a little more and substitute in some carbs. Losing 1 lb/week is a good goal. (50 lbs in a year is a ton.)

Some issues you don't seem to have though of:
1) weather. You need to get the right gear for riding in any weather you might confront on your commute (rain gear, winter gear, etc). I wouldn't recommend riding in icy conditions, but just about anything else is doable, though snow is unpleasant (not so much the snow but the sand/salt mixture they put down flying up in your face). Rain is no big deal if you are prepared.

2) equipment. For this kind of riding you may or may not want the stiffest lightest road bike made. If you will be riding a lot in bad weather, you will most likely want fenders, for example. Remember this is saving you money relative to driving (not to mention getting you healthy) so it's okay to spend some money on this stuff.

3) route/traffic. I would highly recommend finding a safe and enjoyable route that has little traffic. This might not be the most direct route, and it might take some trying. Remember you will be doing this every day so you don't want to take any risks or they will catch up to you in the long run.

Good luck! Bike commuting can be very rewarding once you get the hang of it.

 

[dot]

I bought a road bike this year, it came with 172.5mm cranks. Before this road bike I'd never ridden any other cranks except for 175mm on all my mountain bikes. I tried 170mm once and it didn't work - I felt like I'm wasting my effort and my loop times on a well-known course were worse than on 175mm. I kinda feel the same with 172.5mm cranks but the effect is much milder.

 

[quenya]

None.
The length of your crank doesn't add or remove watts. My understanding of the physics involved is limited but as I understand it: What you're giving up is a bit of leverage in exchange for a faster cadence.

In practice though... Well I test rode a Z4 for a weekend that had 172.5s rather than my 175s and while it rode great, beautifully even, the climbing seemed off, I could never find just the right gear. The shop put on my cranset for the next weekend and it was a revelation. It is not uncommon to get so used to your crank length that a change feels uncomfortable.

 

[JoelS79]

I'm coming from a car background, and I'm a newbie to more serious biking so take it easy on me...
 
That said, while I know there are substantial differences between cars and bikes, the physics of it all should be the same. So, a shorter crank arm would mean less torque applied to the chain ring if you apply equal force to the pedals (meaning you'll need to apply more force to get the same acceleration as the 175). Also, RPM for RPM, the 172.5 might be slower speed wise, but I'm not 100% sure... So, unless my memory of the physics/geometry is horrible (which it could be), you won't lose power, but you might have to exert a little more to get the same speeds.

 

[jollyrogers]

you will need to adjust your saddle height and fore-aft position as you change crank lengths.
 
as the cranks get shorter, increase your saddle height by the same amount that the cranks are shorter. once you've raised the saddle, check fore-aft position. say the tip of your saddle was 5cm behind the bb with 175mm cranks. with 170mm cranks, the tip of the saddle should be 5.5cm behind the bb. some aft movement will happen as you raise the saddle, but that alone is insufficient to equalize position.
 
you can make the following handlebar adjustments when shortening cranks:
 
-adjust bars the same as saddle: preserves back "flatness", much more open hip angle at tdc (clearance between thigh/stomach)
 
-make no adjustment: back slightly flatter, hip angle slightly more open at tdc
 
-lower bars equal to the amount saddle raised: back much flatter, hip angle preserved at tdc
 
i'd want to give myself 10-20 hours of ride time to adapt to the differnt crank length before making a judgement

 

[dot]

Originally Posted by jollyrogers .

you will need to adjust your saddle height and fore-aft position as you change crank lengths.

 
sorry, this is not a question of positioning. On a road bike my saddle is further back and much higher (road cleats are also higher and add at least another 5 mm to the saddle height). I feel less efficient with shorter cranks. My experiment with 170mm length showed that I indeed lost some power (no PM) and my perception of inefficiency didn't cheat me. I'm thinking of buying 175mm cranks but I just want to be sure I'm not making a wrong decision.

 

[jollyrogers]

Originally Posted by dot .

sorry, this is not a question of positioning.
 

by changing your crank length, you change your position - the position of your saddle relative to the circumference of the pedal stroke. Moving the saddle up and back allows you to have the same extension at bdc with shorter cranks.
 
after adapting, you may or may not lose power. your personal most effective torque curve and fiber type composition probably have something to do with it
 
on Tri/TT bikes, there is a trend towards shorter cranks to gain power because they tend to allow a more open hip angle

 

[quenya]

Originally Posted by JoelS79 .

I'm coming from a car background, and I'm a newbie to more serious biking so take it easy on me...


That said, while I know there are substantial differences between cars and bikes, the physics of it all should be the same. So, a shorter crank arm would mean less torque applied to the chain ring if you apply equal force to the pedals (meaning you'll need to apply more force to get the same acceleration as the 175). Also, RPM for RPM, the 172.5 might be slower speed wise, but I'm not 100% sure... So, unless my memory of the physics/geometry is horrible (which it could be), you won't lose power, but you might have to exert a little more to get the same speeds.

 
Joel, not to split hairs here but... A couple of things to think about.

RPM for RPM, crank length is irrelevent, if the chain ring goes through one revolution it will spin the sprocket through the same number of teeth. So 1 revolution of a 52 tooth chainring spins your 13 cog, and rear wheel by extension, through 4 revolutions, moving the bicycle 4X(circumference of the wheel). If it's a 52x26; one revolution of the cranks=1 rev of the chainring=2 revs of the cog=2 revs of the wheel= 1/2 the distance of the 52x13.



A major difference between internal combustion engines and bicycles is that the force applied to the crank of a bicycle can be modulated so rpm is not as closely related to power. In a car power is directly related to rpm, my mustang generates 305 hp at ~5200 rpm only, but I can generate 300 watts at a variety of rpms (cadence) depending on how hard I'm pressing on the pedals.
 

 

[swampy1970]

 

Originally Posted by quenya .

....not to split hairs here but...  
A major difference between internal combustion engines and bicycles is that the force applied to the crank of a bicycle can be modulated so rpm is not as closely related to power. In a car power is directly related to rpm, my mustang generates 305 hp at ~5200 rpm only, but I can generate 300 watts at a variety of rpms (cadence) depending on how hard I'm pressing on the pedals.

Not to split hairs, but horsepower is calculated as a function of work over time based upon the torque that's produced. Your car actually only produces the torque that's measured and the rest is calculated by the guy with the little dyno graph Typically, unless the car maxes out at 305hp it'll hit that mark at least twice on a dyno run at varying rpms. If you vary the throttle or even change the gear for the dyno run, the result of the dyno session will be different. Just like soft pedalling on a bike, a 500hp car can do a 300hp run where 300hp is hit at different rpms.
 
... and your mustang probably doesn't put out 305hp as the advertised figures normally refer to SAE net horsepower, with all the accessories such as A/C and altenator attached, calculated from torque at the crank and not the wheels.
 
Time to go get those split ends cut.
 
I want to see a vid of you climbing Tollhouse at 5200rpm.

 

[quenya]

 

Originally Posted by dot .

sorry, this is not a question of positioning. On a road bike my saddle is further back and much higher (road cleats are also higher and add at least another 5 mm to the saddle height). I feel less efficient with shorter cranks. My experiment with 170mm length showed that I indeed lost some power (no PM) and my perception of inefficiency didn't cheat me. I'm thinking of buying 175mm cranks but I just want to be sure I'm not making a wrong decision.
 

If I were in your position I would look at any advice offered, and thank those giving it. At the very least don't be rude.

Crank length is a position/fit issue far moreso than a power issue. BTW power is a fit issue too, don't believe me lower your saddle 3 inches.

It seems to me that you are comparing your percieved 'power' from a mountain bike to a road bike, is that right? If so you need to make sure the bike fits you and is set up for your physique then ride it. MTBs have much different gearing than road bikes and it may take a while to adapt.

 

[quenya]

Swampy, good looking out brother I certainly don't want to pass on incorrect information. But I think I illustrated the point adequately.

Btw my 'stang sits parked most of the time and doesn't produce any torque or HP, but the SAE estimate was 220, my brother who is the gearhead/mechanic did intake exhaust heads cam and something else to get the HP up high the tuned it back down, different cam, so I could drive the thing daily. Last time he checked it maxed at 305.

Just to clarify the 500 hp car you said would produce 300 hp at two points on the power band, are those both to the left of the max hp or once on either side? As I understood HP on the left of the max hp would be unique and to the right of max is irrelevant as you would have switched gears rather than going so far past redline that you dropped 200 hp. If I am mistaken don't hesitate to drop some knowledge on me!

Oh, I barely pedal 100 rpm I'm victim of a tragic case of gear masher, thus me spinning 5200 rpm is extra ridiculus.

 

[frenchyge]

Originally Posted by dot .

I bought a road bike this year, it came with 172.5mm cranks. Before this road bike I'd never ridden any other cranks except for 175mm on all my mountain bikes. I tried 170mm once and it didn't work - I felt like I'm wasting my effort and my loop times on a well-known course were worse than on 175mm. I kinda feel the same with 172.5mm cranks but the effect is much milder.

You will have to exert 1.4% more force with the shorter cranks in order to produce the same power. Additionally, your saddle height could change by 2.5mm (1/10th of an inch). It's unlikely that you could perceive either of these differences in other than a psychosomatic sense, so I'd suggest saving the money.
 

 

[dot]

Mea culpa, no offense intended. I ain't no stupid (as I said in another thread about splitting 2x20 /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif ) but I need ask questions more precisely. I know that shorter cranks mean more force applied to get the same torque since the lever is shorter but it can be compensated via lesser range of leg movement to overcome tiredness since force and hence exertion are higher. I only wanted to know real world numbers and maybe some experience how long it takes to get comfortable with slightly shorter cranks. Personally I don't feel much difference like between 170mm and 175mm but I do feel some very subtle drop in power otherwise my TT times or 2x20 times could be better. And yes, it's a question of positioning too and probably discomfort with the crank length causes my perpetual discomfort in position

 

[CDA 455]

For what it's worth:
 
1) By changing chainring(s) when swapping to a shorter crankset, one can maintain 'power' of previous crankset/chainring set up.
 
2) On a road bike, from what I understand; high RPM cadence (90 to 100RPM) via a shorter crankset is the way to go.
 
3) Unless one has an inseam of 34" or longer; 170mm to 172.5mm cranksets are for people that are approx. 5'-10" to 6' (31" to 33" inseam).
 
4) Shorter cranksets are easier on the knees.
 
5) Exception: Big Mig; Miguel Indurain.
The dude was a freak compared to other elite riders (6'-2", 175lbs). He was an average 20lbs to 40lbs heavier than his fellow elite counterparts and almost all in muscle. Because of said muscle-mass, no one could touch him in the TT and the flats. He used longer crankset and a 55T chainring to his advantage via the torque transfer from his massive quads.
 

 

[frenchyge]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dot .

I know that shorter cranks mean more force applied to get the same torque since the lever is shorter but it can be compensated via lesser range of leg movement to overcome tiredness since force and hence exertion are higher. I only wanted to know real world numbers and maybe some experience how long it takes to get comfortable with slightly shorter cranks. Personally I don't feel much difference like between 170mm and 175mm but I do feel some very subtle drop in power otherwise my TT times or 2x20 times could be better. And yes, it's a question of positioning too and probably discomfort with the crank length causes my perpetual discomfort in position



The size difference between those cranks is less than the rated accuracy of today's power meters, so I'd be skeptical of any "real world numbers" that you see thrown out there which profess a power difference associated with crank length. If you're not even using a power meter to detect the "very subtle drop" which you notice on the 170s, then.....
 
As far as leg range of motion goes, work some numbers on how much 2.5mm changes the joint angles of the leg at various points of the circle.
 
I'd think more about the loss of clearance at the bottom of the pedal circle by putting longer cranks on a frame sized for shorter.