<p>MNKat - those speeds blow my mind. Still trying to wrap my head around this cycling thing as compared to running? Seems like you can train for a year in running and be competitive in your age group among a variety of distances from 800 meters to a marathon. Yet it seems like in cycling it takes years. Many of these cyclists that I’ve encountered are far from running shape in terms of weight (and bmi!) yet they blow me away. </p>
<p>Are there age adjusted standards and overall time standards for cycling distances?</p>
<p>Ohiopublic, the anomaly you observe in the appearances of some very fast cyclists is one that I have observed also. There are many cyclists I know who can dust me into the weeds but who if you stood next to me you would think would seriously underperform. This disparity, I think, only holds true, however, up to a certainly level of performance. As fast as I’m capable of riding, I’m still only a somewhat fast sport level rider. When you get up into the serious amateur racing levels - Cat 1, 2, and even some 3’s, what you see is what you get. And many of the seemingly “out of shape” but ridiculously fast riders you see could be older riders with a long racing history who despite their appearance have a foundation of strength and endurance that still serves them well. More on that below.</p>
<p>Having once upon a time been a runner, I can tell you that in my experience cycling and running are such different sports that other than general cardiovascular conditioning, there is little that transfers from one sport to the other. Much different engagement of muscles, much different chains of motion and much different durations of events. A couple of summers ago, I had the notion to pick up running again and discovered very quickly that notwithstanding my cycling fitness levels, I couldn’t run at nearly the comparable level of performance. Specificity of training really counts (which is what makes triathlons such a challenge).</p>
<p>When it comes to cycling - and in particular road cycling as opposed to shorter duration mtn biking or track events that rely more on bursts of power - it can require years to build a foundation of strength and endurance which is needed to ride or race longer distances at speed. When I started riding seriously at the age of 40, I was training for my first MS150. My goal was to be able to ride 30 miles at a 15 mph avg. It was tough! Now, some 21 years later, I am a much different, stronger rider. I’m not suggesting that it will take you 20 years to achieve your goals but fast performance oriented road riding requires time to develop the leg endurance and strength that will last for longer durations. I know some younger riders who came into cycling inexperienced but committed to riding 4-5 days a week and who in a year were able to do flat 100 mile rides at an 18 mph pace. I know older riders with years of experience who have the foundation to do that or better notwithstanding their age because of the foundation they have built. </p>
<p>Give yourself time. Nothing makes you a better cyclist than putting in the miles. Along the way, learn more about technique that enables you to conserve energy and be more efficient. Don’t stress over whether the “out of shape” riders are faster (my ego would be severely bruised if I did that ). Do your own rides at your training levels and you will progress.</p>
<p>just a shout out to Bunsen. Whether it has been the CEP knee braces (that you recommended) or the three week hiatus from running, I have pretty much eliminated my knee pain problems. Thanks for the suggestion.</p>
<p>I’m back into a regular exercise schedule after recovering from my overseas trip. Running three times a week and CrossFit class two or three times a week. Progress is sure slow! I know I just have to stick with it, though.</p>
<p>I read that, but I’m not sure how they could tell. I would be surprised if they did anything beyond a standard blood glucose test (probably fasted). To look at short term response, I think you have to do a series of blood sugar tests at 10 minute intervals for several hours after eating. Nothing in in the reports suggest this study did that kind of deep dive.</p>
<p>After hearing the lead author, I’m not inclined to spend $30 to read her paper. It was pretty apparent from some things she said that, despite characterizing the Atkins diet, she has never actually read one of the Atkins diet books. Inexcusable, IMO, someone in her field to have not read either the original or Phinney, Volek, and Westman’s updated version:</p>
<p>Idad, can you please repost the link to the article? I’m at the library, but the thread moved too fast, and I did not save a bookmark. Hate to search CC. </p>
<p>One note: these percentages are probably not terribly accurate as it’s almost certain that the participants in both sides of the study underestimated the total food and calorie intake they were consuming. In other words, if they had been really eating as little as they said they were eating, they would have lost a lot more weight than they actually did in 12 months. I saw somewhere that they were reporting a 500 calorie a day reduction in food consumption. This underreporting is one of the bedrock causes for the sad lack of good, consistent scientific research on nutrition and weight loss – it’s almost impossible to get accurate food tracking data from people in a study. I figured this out when I realized that, despite a very serious effort to track food intake, I had to start using a kitchen scale to weigh my food to have any prayer of being accurate. Who does that?</p>
<p>Market Basket for the win: I’ve got two small lobsters in the fridge for dinner. $4.99 lb. Pushed grilled salmon steak off the menu.</p>
<p>To the steamy basement first (single leg deadlifts and squats and stuff), then steamed lobster with butter and lemon juice with fresh broccoli. Somebody should study my diet! :)</p>
<p>We took S2 to MB last weekend to stop up his dorm. For a kiddo who likes to cook, he was in heaven…though I don’t think I’ll be trying whatever he does with the frog legs.</p>
<p>Logging in today:
1 hr Pilates, focused on “de-linking” my neck / upper deltoids / upper trapezoids which apparently like to move as a unit. I have strong shoulders for a girl but the downside is that I rely on them to power through exercises and it’s harder for me to isolate my shoulder blades or my arms. </p>
<p>1.5 hour walk with a girlfriend I hadn’t seen in 10 months - lovely weather. She had a fitness tracker which said we burned 450 calories. (We are about the same height / weight.) That seems like a lot to me, but I’ll take it.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, if you walked with 3 mph speed, you burned about that much. Sounds reasonable to me. I probably burned a ton today dragging a bunch of extra weight around! I cannot believe how heavy that tote feels, but that is still less than the extra weight I used to carry on me 24/7! No way I’m going to allow myself to gain it back! B-) </p>
<p>Back from the steamy basement. Man, is it hot and humid here right now. Punched the clock. Actually, everything was pretty good. I didn’t video it so I don’t know for sure, but the single leg deadlifts are feeling significantly better/stronger.</p>
<p>Lemon is squeezed. Lobster pot is simmering. Just checking on the computer to see how long Julia Child says to steam two tiny 1.25 lb lobsters.</p>
<p>The lobsters were spur of the moment so I couldn’t do the Bobby Flay lobster avocado cocktail recipe I tried at his restaurant because I didn’t have the ingredients memorized. So, I may be back for more $4.99 lb lobsters next week. Tonight it’s my old standby. Steam them 'til they are half cooked. Then, take the meat out of the shell and saute it quickly with butter and lemon juice.</p>
<p>No exercise today, besides a dog walk, and no lobster either. But did have a delicious junk salad for dinner. Think upscale greek salad with lean(er) gyro meat and grilled chicken. </p>
<p>Thanks, Sabaray. According to the NYTIMES blog, both groups in this study reduced their carb intake:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The “low carb” group cut from 240 grams to 127 grams (which isn’t even really “low carb”). The “low fat” group cut their carbs slightly from 240 grams to 200 grams.</p>
<p>So, in reality, this study compared a slight carb reduction to slightly bigger carb reduction.</p>
). Do your own rides at your training levels and you will progress.</p>
I cannot believe how heavy that tote feels, but that is still less than the extra weight I used to carry on me 24/7! No way I’m going to allow myself to gain it back! B-) </p>