The sweet spot in biking

[Badger_South]

A few folks here have mentioned getting into cycling directly or incidently
after having problems with jogging, a great activity, but problematic for
quite a few after years or even sooner.

The problem I found is that you just don't get that runner's high, which
for me involved moving into a higher plane of activity, with more demand on
the body at the 6-7 min/mile threshold (ymmv), with cycling like you do
with jogging. (not to say biking doesn't make you high, John Denver).

I've hoped that this higher plane would be available on the bike, but
wasn't sure. But for me, when in this state while jogging was as clear as
night and day. Biking can be a bit too mild - even when you're highly
trained and moving at 20mph easily, you're not really in the 'zone'
(whereas a beginner would be).

I'm now beginning to think that there is a comperable, if not enhanced
version of this runner's high on the bike, and it lies in the area of
spinning up, and continuous climbing. I really felt this sensation strongly
yesterday on the 2 mile climb at 4-5%, and felt as though I could keep this
high demand output for extended periods. (of course the more advanced
riders would be going faster, but the analogy is similar). There was a nice
sensation of tightness in the lower body, which felt like when you stand
and tense your muscles to 'make a muscle' in the mirror, but obviously the
quads were contracting and relaxing - it's hard to describe, I guess.

In addition, I felt like I needed to stay at this output level and not drop
off to coast or even hit the flats, or I'd move out of the zone or
metabolic 'sweet spot'. It was -really- disappointing to have to coast
slowly to the bottom after turning around at the summit, and wait that long
to do a repeat. Obviously, I need to increase the warmup. The two to three
miles to the park from my house will include some shorter but steeper
sections. But the neat thing is that this 'mistake' highlighted an
interesting illumination (for me).

What's also nice is that on the bike you can fine tune this sweet spot much
easier using gearing than when running where your adjustments are coarse.

I also found that I had to push to get into this zone. I.e. at the first
urge to gear down, I upped the cadence, and would try to hold it for
another 100yds. With this method I felt the -body- shift gears internally,
which is pretty cool.

Anyway, early morning raving. Imagination or not, I'm having fun... ;-D

-B

 

[Paul Cassel]

Badger_South wrote:
> A few folks here have mentioned getting into cycling directly or incidently
> after having problems with jogging, a great activity, but problematic for
> quite a few after years or even sooner.
>
> The problem I found is that you just don't get that runner's high, which
> for me involved moving into a higher plane of activity, with more demand on
> the body at the 6-7 min/mile threshold (ymmv), with cycling like you do
> with jogging. (not to say biking doesn't make you high, John Denver).
>

I came into cycling after running for years too. IMO, the reason we
can't get similarly 'high' is that in most cycling we are distracted
often by the need to navigate traffic or other breaks in our flow.
Running was an activity where I could just put myself on auto and float
along where cycling, for the most part, isn't similar due to the need to
do it in multi use areas where we are either much faster than walkers or
slower than cages.

We have a bike path near me. If I can get there when few others are
there then can get into the same flow as running. Unfortunately, the
others on the path are often walkers or even families with baby
strollers so usually I have to keep alert enough to give them way.

My guess is you found your high not due to the slope, but that you were
able to produce significant wattage without interruption. But I could be
wrong.

-paul

 

[Badger_South]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:00:19 -0600, Paul Cassel <[email protected]> wrote:

>My guess is you found your high not due to the slope, but that you were
>able to produce significant wattage without interruption. But I could be
>wrong.
>
>-paul

Yes, this is my feeling. It explains why cyclists like to go ride in the
mountains, with that uninterrupted wattage opportunity. Serously that
hadn't occured to me in just this way until now (duh). ;-)

-B
(Mostly it's that they are freaks of nature, though, and enjoy pain,
dontcha think?<g>)

 

[Claire Petersky]

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

> I'm now beginning to think that there is a comperable, if not enhanced
> version of this runner's high on the bike, and it lies in the area of
> spinning up, and continuous climbing.

I wrote about this tangentally, a few years back -- see:
http://tinyurl.com/6zkpd. The post was entitled, "riding like drinking
schnapps?"


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

 

[Badger_South]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:18:27 GMT, "Claire Petersky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> I'm now beginning to think that there is a comperable, if not enhanced
>> version of this runner's high on the bike, and it lies in the area of
>> spinning up, and continuous climbing.
>
>I wrote about this tangentally, a few years back -- see:
>http://tinyurl.com/6zkpd. The post was entitled, "riding like drinking
>schnapps?"

Yes, I'm in the 'honeymoon' phase of this, and knowing that I'm intending
to enjoy the heck outta it.

When I read about your century and double century rides I get this glazed
over feeling and wish I was at that level. But the truth is 'you'll get
there soon enough...don't wish your life away, etc.', and you've
highlighted this admirably. (funny post, that).

I only wish I had been at this point when the Shenandoah ride came up in
Sept. (missed it by -that- much..., lol). If I can get the cue sheet from
them, I may go ride it as a preview in November. It's only about 80 miles
from here by car...thinking aloud.

-B

 

[amh]

Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> A few folks here have mentioned getting into cycling directly or incidently
> after having problems with jogging, a great activity, but problematic for
> quite a few after years or even sooner.

How so? I've been running since 1979. No major problems that prevent
me from anything. Running does no damage if done properly (warm up,
down, stretch) with good shoes.

>
> The problem I found is that you just don't get that runner's high, which
> for me involved moving into a higher plane of activity, with more demand on
> the body at the 6-7 min/mile threshold (ymmv), with cycling like you do
> with jogging. (not to say biking doesn't make you high, John Denver).

I find that runner's high occurs more with time than it does with
effort. There have been long runs I've done where I have little
recollection of them when I'm done.

>
> I've hoped that this higher plane would be available on the bike, but
> wasn't sure. But for me, when in this state while jogging was as clear as
> night and day. Biking can be a bit too mild - even when you're highly
> trained and moving at 20mph easily, you're not really in the 'zone'
> (whereas a beginner would be).

I tend to think that there is more going on while riding a bicycle.
When I'm running for 90 minutes + I can zone out. I just have to be
mindful of my surroundings to a small degree. The rest is automatic.
Cycling I'm changing grears, trying to keep upright, looking for
potholes all at a higher speed. Running is a highly repetative motion,
while cycling there are many different positions (3 on the bars and on
or off the saddle).

>
> I'm now beginning to think that there is a comperable, if not enhanced
> version of this runner's high on the bike, and it lies in the area of
> spinning up, and continuous climbing. I really felt this sensation strongly
> yesterday on the 2 mile climb at 4-5%, and felt as though I could keep this
> high demand output for extended periods. (of course the more advanced
> riders would be going faster, but the analogy is similar). There was a nice
> sensation of tightness in the lower body, which felt like when you stand
> and tense your muscles to 'make a muscle' in the mirror, but obviously the
> quads were contracting and relaxing - it's hard to describe, I guess.

This situation you describe is a lot to do with high levels of
concentration. It may almost become a yoga like situation. But I see
your point and can identify with it.

I think that I've gotten more of a cyclist's high while touring
someplace quiet. I just soak in the surroundings and it seems I don't
notice my legs moving.

>
> Anyway, early morning raving. Imagination or not, I'm having fun... ;-D

To paraphrase Duke Ellington "If it feels like fun it is fun."

Andy

>
> -B

 

[neil0502]

amh wrote:

> Badger_South wrote
>> A few folks here have mentioned getting into cycling directly or
>> incidently after having problems with jogging, a great activity, but
>> problematic for quite a few after years or even sooner.
>
> How so? I've been running since 1979. No major problems that prevent
> me from anything. Running does no damage if done properly (warm up,
> down, stretch) with good shoes.

Count yourself very, very fortunate.

Running can be very, very tough on the knees (and shins and ligaments and
tendons), proper technique, good shoes, forgiving surfaces, low BMI, and
best intentions notwithstanding.

 

[gds]

Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> A few folks here have mentioned getting into cycling directly or incidently
> after having problems with jogging, a great activity, but problematic for
> quite a few after years or even sooner.
>
> The problem I found is that you just don't get that runner's high, which
> for me involved moving into a higher plane of activity, with more demand on
> the body at the 6-7 min/mile threshold (ymmv), with cycling like you do
> with jogging. (not to say biking doesn't make you high, John Denver).
>
> I've hoped that this higher plane would be available on the bike, but
> wasn't sure. But for me, when in this state while jogging was as clear as
> night and day. Biking can be a bit too mild - even when you're highly
> trained and moving at 20mph easily, you're not really in the 'zone'
> (whereas a beginner would be).
>
> I'm now beginning to think that there is a comperable, if not enhanced
> version of this runner's high on the bike, and it lies in the area of
> spinning up, and continuous climbing. I really felt this sensation strongly
> yesterday on the 2 mile climb at 4-5%, and felt as though I could keep this
> high demand output for extended periods. (of course the more advanced
> riders would be going faster, but the analogy is similar). There was a nice
> sensation of tightness in the lower body, which felt like when you stand
> and tense your muscles to 'make a muscle' in the mirror, but obviously the
> quads were contracting and relaxing - it's hard to describe, I guess.
>
> In addition, I felt like I needed to stay at this output level and not drop
> off to coast or even hit the flats, or I'd move out of the zone or
> metabolic 'sweet spot'. It was -really- disappointing to have to coast
> slowly to the bottom after turning around at the summit, and wait that long
> to do a repeat. Obviously, I need to increase the warmup. The two to three
> miles to the park from my house will include some shorter but steeper
> sections. But the neat thing is that this 'mistake' highlighted an
> interesting illumination (for me).
>
> What's also nice is that on the bike you can fine tune this sweet spot much
> easier using gearing than when running where your adjustments are coarse.
>
> I also found that I had to push to get into this zone. I.e. at the first
> urge to gear down, I upped the cadence, and would try to hold it for
> another 100yds. With this method I felt the -body- shift gears internally,
> which is pretty cool.
>
> Anyway, early morning raving. Imagination or not, I'm having fun... ;-D
>
> -B
Agreed! You need to work hard to get those endorphins going. Cycling
allows yu to break up the continuus hard work of running. Runners
don't coast and runners work hard going downhill as well as up. On a
bike it is easy to just sit up for a while and that will slow down
endorphin production.
On longer rides I use a HR meter. Mostly so that I won't blow up
chasing better riders for long periods of time. However, when the
group isn't hammering I'm sometimes surprised to see that I am riding
comnfortably in the pack at 20 mph but my HR is only ~65% of LTHL.
When I run my HR never goes much below 85%.

 

[David Reuteler]

Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I'm now beginning to think that there is a comperable, if not enhanced
>> version of this runner's high on the bike, and it lies in the area of
>> spinning up, and continuous climbing.
>
> I wrote about this tangentally, a few years back -- see:
> http://tinyurl.com/6zkpd. The post was entitled, "riding like drinking
> schnapps?"

time for you to start touring, claire. 90+ mile days, lots of climbing.
every night the sleep of angels.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:20:41 -0700, gds wrote:

> Agreed! You need to work hard to get those endorphins going. Cycling
> allows yu to break up the continuus hard work of running. Runners don't
> coast and runners work hard going downhill as well as up.

Sounds like an argument for a fixed gear.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember
_`\(,_ | that your initial objective was to drain the swamp. -- LBJ
(_)/ (_) |

 

[David Reuteler]

David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:20:41 -0700, gds wrote:
>
>> Agreed! You need to work hard to get those endorphins going. Cycling
>> allows yu to break up the continuus hard work of running. Runners don't
>> coast and runners work hard going downhill as well as up.
>
> Sounds like an argument for a fixed gear.

one thing i've always liked about fixed gears proves this wrong. you
can "coast" (aka rest your legs while spinning) and slack and still look
like you're working your ass off. it's also the reason why it's not hard
to go back and forth between a fixed gear and a freewheeled bike -- you
just relax your legs: if the pedals keep spinning you're on your fixed
if not you've got a freewheel. the one thing i never do anymore on any
of my bikes are the things that don't work on fixed geared bikes: the
little victory dances at the top of hills for instance. lowest common
denominator, i guess.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]

 

[Paul Cassel]

amh wrote:
> Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>A few folks here have mentioned getting into cycling directly or incidently
>>after having problems with jogging, a great activity, but problematic for
>>quite a few after years or even sooner.
>
>
> How so? I've been running since 1979. No major problems that prevent
> me from anything. Running does no damage if done properly (warm up,
> down, stretch) with good shoes.
>
>
Gee, is this a silly and annoying type of post. I know of someone who
drinks a quart of whiskey a day, eats nothing but fat and is in great
health at 90 years old. Why not then say that if you drink whiskey and
eat fat right, you'll be a healthy 90 year old? Makes as much sense.

-paul

 

[Badger_South]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:07:03 -0600, Paul Cassel <[email protected]> wrote:

>amh wrote:
>> Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>>A few folks here have mentioned getting into cycling directly or incidently
>>>after having problems with jogging, a great activity, but problematic for
>>>quite a few after years or even sooner.
>>
>>
>> How so? I've been running since 1979. No major problems that prevent
>> me from anything. Running does no damage if done properly (warm up,
>> down, stretch) with good shoes.
>>
>>
>Gee, is this a silly and annoying type of post. I know of someone who
>drinks a quart of whiskey a day, eats nothing but fat and is in great
>health at 90 years old. Why not then say that if you drink whiskey and
>eat fat right, you'll be a healthy 90 year old? Makes as much sense.
>
>-paul

True, but I really don't think he meant it like that... Every runner hears
tales of shin splints and knee problems and soforth; maybe he was mostly
expressing enthusiasm. But I get your point.

What's amazing to me is that anyone could do a highly repetitive activity
like running, even given that the human skeletal system is an amazing
example of architecture (just study the load on the spine).

Hell, examine the architecture of the human foot. If you looked at it from
an engineering perspective, nobody would ever design such a structure and
task it to do what a human foot needs to do normally to locomote, yet in
practice it does all this and more.

In addition, sometimes non-running related injuries can curtail a runner's
career. Runners are fragile things and guys like Shorter and Rogers who are
still running are the exception, not the rule.

He did seem to miss my adjectival use of 'a few', above... ;-D

-B

 

[Claire Petersky]

"David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:

> time for you to start touring, claire. 90+ mile days, lots of climbing.
> every night the sleep of angels.

Instead, I wake up at 4 PM, and can't back to sleep. I feel like cat food
all day. That is the sleep of the damned.

I'm thinking of doing this:
http://www.alaw.org/support_alaw/big_ride/pacific_coast/ for 2005. I've got
two close family members with emphysema. It is a horrible way to die, and
maybe I could do something about that. I could hit up relatives for the
money. It's a thousand miles, two thousand dollars, but I think I could
manage both.

It would also justify the acquisition of a new bike, don't you think?


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

 

[the black rose]

Claire Petersky wrote:
> I'm thinking of doing this:
> http://www.alaw.org/support_alaw/big_ride/pacific_coast/ for 2005. I've got
> two close family members with emphysema. It is a horrible way to die, and
> maybe I could do something about that. I could hit up relatives for the
> money. It's a thousand miles, two thousand dollars, but I think I could
> manage both.

Ooh. Let us know if you do this, and give us LOTS of
details afterward if you do.

When I get my endurance up, I think I'd like to ride for
cancer research -- specifically breast cancer research. My
mum died of that. That's another horrible way to die.

> It would also justify the acquisition of a new bike, don't you think?

Absolutely!

Make sure it's a *red* bike, though. *grin*

-km

--
Only cowards fight kids -- unidentified Moscow protester

http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
proud to be owned by a yorkie

 

[Bill Baka]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:07:03 -0600, Paul Cassel <[email protected]> wrote:

> amh wrote:
>> Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>> A few folks here have mentioned getting into cycling directly or
>>> incidently
>>> after having problems with jogging, a great activity, but problematic
>>> for
>>> quite a few after years or even sooner.
>>
>>
>> How so? I've been running since 1979. No major problems that prevent
>> me from anything. Running does no damage if done properly (warm up,
>> down, stretch) with good shoes.
>>
>>
> Gee, is this a silly and annoying type of post. I know of someone who
> drinks a quart of whiskey a day, eats nothing but fat and is in great
> health at 90 years old. Why not then say that if you drink whiskey and
> eat fat right, you'll be a healthy 90 year old? Makes as much sense.
>
> -paul

I have to agree that the sweet spot is just getting on the bike
and doing it. Jim Fixx found the sweet spot, permanently, some years
back. So much for that line of thinking. Bicycling is a mode of
transportation that just happens to be enjoyable to many of us.
Warm ups, yeah about 3 miles into it I start to get warm, and don't
have to look silly in public getting ready to bike.
Bill Baka, 3 bikes and counting.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote:
>I've hoped that this higher plane would be available on the bike, but
>wasn't sure. But for me, when in this state while jogging was as clear as
>night and day. Biking can be a bit too mild - even when you're highly
>trained and moving at 20mph easily, you're not really in the 'zone'
>(whereas a beginner would be).

I wonder if it involves giving yourself a low-grade concussion,
or production of endorphins to mask the pain in your gut and your
knees...

Focus on the horizon (or the crest of the next hill) while you're
riding, and avoid bobbing. You'll zone.

--Blair
"They call it jogging because
crack and self-mutilation were
taken..."

 

[David Reuteler]

Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:
> It would also justify the acquisition of a new bike, don't you think?

err, i went down the coast from seattle to los angeles in 2002 on a, uhh,
bike bought for the occassion.

http://www.visi.com/~reuteler/touring/2002/calicoast5.jpg

no harm in buying a year or two ahead of time, either. gotta train ya know.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]

 

[SlowRider]

[email protected] (amh) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > A few folks here have mentioned getting into cycling directly or incidently
> > after having problems with jogging, a great activity, but problematic for
> > quite a few after years or even sooner.
>
> How so? I've been running since 1979. No major problems that prevent
> me from anything. Running does no damage if done properly (warm up,
> down, stretch) with good shoes.

Oh, how I wish that were so. Perhaps my track coaches in school
didn't teach me to do these things properly, but I think they did -
they were pretty smart guys. Despite all these efforts I had to give
up running about 10 years ago to save my knees.

Cycling has been a wonderful alternative. I don't feel the same
"high", but I do so love doing long climbs, so I suspect it's a
similar experience to a runner's high. The mental distractions
(gears, traffic, etc.) aren't so bad once you get a lot of miles in
your legs and it becomes second nature, but it still probably detracts
from exercise-induced nirvana.

I'm now doing some swimming for my off-season training and it seems to
have similar characteristics (once you get your body past the "oh
s--t, I have to BREATHE!" sensation). No traffic to worry about, and
once you get into a rhythm, the laps just keep going by.

Still, I can't wait to get back on my bike...

JR

 

[amh]

Paul Cassel <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> amh wrote:
> > Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >>A few folks here have mentioned getting into cycling directly or incidently
> >>after having problems with jogging, a great activity, but problematic for
> >>quite a few after years or even sooner.
> >
> >
> > How so? I've been running since 1979. No major problems that prevent
> > me from anything. Running does no damage if done properly (warm up,
> > down, stretch) with good shoes.
> >
> >
> Gee, is this a silly and annoying type of post. I know of someone who
> drinks a quart of whiskey a day, eats nothing but fat and is in great
> health at 90 years old. Why not then say that if you drink whiskey and
> eat fat right, you'll be a healthy 90 year old? Makes as much sense.
>
> -paul

No it isn't the same. Whiskey and other alcohol are known to cause
liver damage and intestonal problems not to exclude of people allergic
to alcohol. There is now way to drink large amounts of alcohol and not
do liver damage. Alcohol reacts chemically with the human body to
produce those affects. You may or may not be able to survive with
those issues but they are happening regardless.

Running is different in that it doesn't react with the body. If you
take measures to reduce injury (stretch, wear proper shoes, don't over
do it, eat properly, etc) the body will adapt to the running just
fine.

Subtle difference but none the less important.

Andy