Whats a decent Average speed ?



"Penny S" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Dan Volker ran this through spell check:
>
> > And now I'll expect some of the regular posters, who
> > consider training to be a crime against the sport of
> > mountain biking, to start pissing and moaning about me
> > approaching mountain biking like a roadie...
>
> nah, I wouldn't do that. I did have fun today out with
> Tuffgirl. The few times I glanced at my bike computer it
> was either at 3.4 mph or 17. I'm sure it would give me an
> average but I'd have to find the directions to figure out
> what button to push. We did ride 10.43 miles, I know that
> for sure.
>
> ;-)
>
> Penny

You sure it wasn't 10.427 and your computer just rounded it
up?? My computer died a couple years ago, and I occasionally
miss the stats, but not any more. And I never had a computer
on the SS--It would be a violation of the law.

paladin
 
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:11:17 -0800, Penny S wrote:
> Dan Volker ran this through spell check:
>
>> And now I'll expect some of the regular posters, who
>> consider training to be a crime against the sport of
>> mountain biking, to start pissing and moaning about me
>> approaching mountain biking like a roadie...
>
> nah, I wouldn't do that. I did have fun today out with
> Tuffgirl. The few times I glanced at my bike computer it
> was either at 3.4 mph or 17. I'm sure it would give me an
> average but I'd have to find the directions to figure out
> what button to push. We did ride 10.43 miles, I know that
> for sure.

Yeah, but that was mountain biking. Your speed, and whatever
friggin' "zone" you happen to be in, is dictated by terrain.
I was freezing for ~20 minutes last night on a looong one-
way downhill, and definitely in "zone zero" or something
like that...until I turned around.

Training is a necessary evil for MTBers who don't happen to
live in a place where they can ride off-road year-round. But
its not rocket science and you don't have to measure every
detail. You can FEEL it when you're pushing yourself, and
when you're pushing yourself too hard. Its just a matter of
paying attention. I have a roadie friend who's never owned
an HRM, and he won the Oregon state hill climb championship
in his second year of racing. He just rides a lot, and
climbs a lot.

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail
address, at least)
 
"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:11:17 -0800, Penny S wrote:
> > Dan Volker ran this through spell check:
> >
> >> And now I'll expect some of the regular posters, who
> >> consider training to be a crime against the sport of
> >> mountain biking, to start pissing and moaning about me
> >> approaching mountain biking like a roadie...
> >
> > nah, I wouldn't do that. I did have fun today out with
> > Tuffgirl. The few times I glanced at my bike computer it
> > was either at 3.4 mph or 17. I'm
sure
> > it would give me an average but I'd have to find the
> > directions to
figure
> > out what button to push. We did ride 10.43 miles, I know
> > that for sure.
>
> Yeah, but that was mountain biking. Your speed, and
> whatever friggin' "zone" you happen to be in, is dictated
> by terrain. I was freezing for ~20 minutes last night on a
> looong one-way downhill, and definitely in "zone zero" or
> something like that...until I turned around.
>
> Training is a necessary evil for MTBers who don't happen
> to live in a place where they can ride off-road year-
> round. But its not rocket science and you don't have to
> measure every detail. You can FEEL it when you're pushing
> yourself, and when you're pushing yourself too hard. Its
> just a matter of paying attention. I have a roadie friend
> who's never owned an HRM, and he won the Oregon state hill
> climb championship in his second year of racing. He just
> rides a lot, and climbs a lot.
>
> --
> -BB-

Ignoring that many on this list hate the idea of training,
and feel that a "training program" to get better/faster is
like selling your soul to Bill Gates, I have to disagree
once more.

Plenty of people who mountain bike are fat, and they don't
want to be. Training in an "optimal" way, will help them,
while "just riding" alot may ... or may not, make a big
change in their body fat. There are huge numbers of fat
cyclists on the road--people who ride all the time, 3 and 4
hours per ride, 3 to 5 days per week, and they stay fat.
Part of this is diet, part is riding in the wrong heart rate
zones too much of the time. You can hate this idea all you
want, but its still going to be true.

Plenty of mountain bikers want to be faster on trails than
they now are...just riding alot will help with technique,
and that "is" a big deal, but where constant turns and hills
are an issue, recovery ability and aerobic power ( good VO2
max) are going to make them a lot happier with their riding
experiences ( assuming again that riding faster out of turns
and up hills is important to them).

For you to talk about some guy with great hill climbing
genetics, who does not need to train to win hill climbs,
is ridiculous in the context of this discussion. Of
course genetics is important. If a guy is built like a
Tour de France mountain climber, and weighs about 140
pounds, he ought to climb well, even if he only rides a
bike once a month. Big deal. That is information that
helps no one on this NG.

You can't "feel" the difference between zone 1 or zone 2
reliably, you can't feel the difference between zone 2 and 3
reliably, and if you want to stay in zone 4 for an hour ,
some trails may make this easy, some will be hard to pace
this way on. The cumulative difference over 6 months will be
huge, if you train in zone 2 on long rides 2 days per week,
stay in zone 4 for at least an hour on two other days per
week, and have at least one of these two zone 4 days
including major interval type explosions for 1 to 4 minutes
at a time ( into zone 5)...and this is pretty easy on many
mountain bike trails. The hard part is limiting to zone 2,
for 3 and 4 hours at a time...this is what gets some
mountain bikers to do this on a road bike, since alot of
trails make this kind of modulated exertion almost
impossible. And again, the changes a cyclist will undergo,
if they do all of this, are extreme, compared to the ones
who are so mentally lazy that they can only go out for
unstructured rides.

If you are happy with where you are, then the unstructured
rides are exactly what you need. If you are not happy with
the speed you climb at, or how fast you can come out of each
tight turn, in a long twisty section covering many miles,
then you should not just stay unhappy--you should do
something about it. I don't think people should accept their
obesity and be happy with it, anymore than I think slow
riders should accept having to be slow, if they don't want
to be slow. If a fat or slow rider wants to get faster or
leaner, telling them to "just ride" is **** poor advice,
unless you want them to fail. The "training" for a fat or
slow rider, is very likely going to be "easier" than the
rides they could be doing by "just riding", and they will be
much happier with the end result.

Dan V
 
Blaine Bauer wrote:
> But its not rocket science and you don't have to measure
> every detail. You can FEEL it when you're pushing
> yourself, and when you're pushing yourself too hard. Its
> just a matter of paying attention.

That's a bit too much for many to handle, Blaine. Some
people just don't want to have to, or don't know how to
listen to their body. They appear to want to
desensitize the mountain biking experience with the aid
of useless technology. I find it highly amusing and sad
at the same time.

JD
 
BB ran this through spell check:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:11:17 -0800, Penny S wrote:
>> Dan Volker ran this through spell check:
>>
>>> And now I'll expect some of the regular posters, who
>>> consider training to be a crime against the sport of
>>> mountain biking, to start pissing and moaning about me
>>> approaching mountain biking like a roadie...
>>
>> nah, I wouldn't do that. I did have fun today out with
>> Tuffgirl. The few times I glanced at my bike computer it
>> was either at 3.4 mph or
>> 17. I'm sure it would give me an average but I'd have to
>> find the directions to figure out what button to
>> push. We did ride 10.43 miles, I know that for sure.
>
> Yeah, but that was mountain biking. Your speed, and
> whatever friggin' "zone" you happen to be in, is dictated
> by terrain. I was freezing for ~20 minutes last night on a
> looong one-way downhill, and definitely in "zone zero" or
> something like that...until I turned around.
>

I was in the "fun" zone. And the "happy to be outside" zone.
How about "breath that fresh spring air" zone. And the "hoo-
yeah!!!!" zone. Do any of those count?

Penny
 
Penny S wrote:
> BB ran this through spell check:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:11:17 -0800, Penny S wrote:
>>
>>>Dan Volker ran this through spell check:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And now I'll expect some of the regular posters, who
>>>>consider training to be a crime against the sport of
>>>>mountain biking, to start pissing and moaning about me
>>>>approaching mountain biking like a roadie...
>>>
>>>nah, I wouldn't do that. I did have fun today out with
>>>Tuffgirl. The few times I glanced at my bike computer it
>>>was either at 3.4 mph or
>>>17. I'm sure it would give me an average but I'd have to
>>> find the directions to figure out what button to
>>> push. We did ride 10.43 miles, I know that for sure.
>>
>>Yeah, but that was mountain biking. Your speed, and
>>whatever friggin' "zone" you happen to be in, is dictated
>>by terrain. I was freezing for ~20 minutes last night on a
>>looong one-way downhill, and definitely in "zone zero" or
>>something like that...until I turned around.
>>
>
>
> I was in the "fun" zone. And the "happy to be outside"
> zone. How about "breath that fresh spring air" zone. And
> the "hoo-yeah!!!!" zone. Do any of those count?
>
>
>
>
>
> Penny
>
>
I'm sorry Penny, only if you have a readout of you pulse,
watts/kg, and Caloric intake for the past 17 years. Can't
have the fun zone without them.

Shawn
 
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:00:33 -0500, Dan Volker wrote:

> For you to talk about some guy with great hill climbing
> genetics, who does not need to train to win hill climbs,
> is ridiculous in the context of this discussion. Of course
> genetics is important. If a guy is built like a Tour de
> France mountain climber, and weighs about 140 pounds, he
> ought to climb well, even if he only rides a bike once a
> month. Big deal. That is information that helps no one on
> this NG.

Neither does you making up **** and pretending someone else
said it. Who said a WORD about genetics (other than you)?
This guy got to where he is with a TON of hard riding,
that's all I said. And he did it without all your silly
terms and numbers.

Obviously you think those stats are so sacred that no one
can achieve much without them, to the point that anyone who
does is written off as "genetics". Fine, I know no
discussion on Usenet will make you believe otherwise. You
have figures, he has championships.

Me, I just have a thousand-foot climb to the trailhead, and
at least another thousand feet from there. I have nearby
trails so long and steep that few riders will tackle them.
And I know for a fact that the more I climb them, the more
stamina and recovery ability I have.

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail
address, at least)
 
"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:00:33 -0500, Dan Volker wrote:
>
> > For you to talk about some guy with great hill climbing
> > genetics, who
does
> > not need to train to win hill climbs, is ridiculous in
> > the context of
this
> > discussion. Of course genetics is important. If a guy is
> > built like a
Tour
> > de France mountain climber, and weighs about 140 pounds,
> > he ought to
climb
> > well, even if he only rides a bike once a month. Big
> > deal. That is information that helps no one on this NG.
>
> Neither does you making up **** and pretending someone
> else said it. Who said a WORD about genetics (other than
> you)? This guy got to where he is with a TON of hard
> riding, that's all I said. And he did it without all your
> silly terms and numbers.
>
> Obviously you think those stats are so sacred that no one
> can achieve much without them, to the point that anyone
> who does is written off as "genetics". Fine, I know no
> discussion on Usenet will make you believe otherwise. You
> have figures, he has championships.
>
> Me, I just have a thousand-foot climb to the trailhead,
> and at least another thousand feet from there. I have
> nearby trails so long and steep that few riders will
> tackle them. And I know for a fact that the more I climb
> them, the more stamina and recovery ability I have.
>
> --
> -BB-

How nice for you that you know so much....so if you were
racing in the Tour de France, your preparation would be just
riding a big mountain stage as hard as you could, as many
days per week as you could survive ? I'm sure you know the
guys who have done that, get destroyed every year by riders
with much smarter training programs.

And of course I know road racing is not mountain biking, but
developing better fitness is what we are talking about, and
a Lance Armstrong wanna be is going to use optimal training
on each day, to get where they want to--and so is a smart
mountain biker who wants to get faster on climbs and
constant acclerations out of turns. I'd love to race a "no
brain" that thinks all they have to do is ride to get fast.
Barring the genetic freak exception, a racer with your
attitude is typically smoked by the people with talent and
intelligent training .

So now you can tell me racing does not mean jack, and
that all that matters is your zen. I would not want to
argue this, because I agree with it ( and of course,
there are many ways to have fun on a mountain bike) , but
your zen isn't very relevant to the discussion about
increasing fitness.

Dan V
 
"Dan Volker" <[email protected]> wrote [...babble babble
babble ...]
> you train in zone 2 on long rides 2 days per week, stay in
> zone 4 for at least an hour on two other days per week,
> and have at least one of these two zone 4 days including
> major interval type explosions for 1 to 4 minutes at a
> time ( into zone 5)...and this is pretty easy on many
> mountain bike trails. The hard part is limiting to zone 2,
> for 3 and 4 hours at a time...
[... babble babble babble ...]

Wow. Personally I mountain bike to take a break from
doing math.

> the ones who are so mentally lazy that they can only go
> out for unstructured rides.

If simple bliss at the kinetic joy of mountain biking is
"lazy", I wish to be the biggest slacker in the universe. I
don't want my

tell your girlfriend that tonight is a Zone 3 night? On
second thought, don't answer that...)

Just remember: The Freak only need three zones:

http://www.angelfire.com/trek/breaks/rides/3zsse2.html

CC
 
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:56:25 -0500, Dan Volker wrote:

> So now you can tell me racing does not mean jack, and that
> all that matters is your zen. I would not want to argue
> this, because I agree with it ( and of course, there are
> many ways to have fun on a mountain bike) , but your zen
> isn't very relevant to the discussion about increasing
> fitness.

Man, you are one clueless mofo. I'll not write anything
more, since you won't read it anyway (and will respond as if
I wrote something else).

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail
address, at least)