HEART RATE

[datakoll]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1207836612-tXF3gLP7xAtCmoDZu+EXPg

[Andrew Price]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:12:40 -0700 (PDT), datakoll
> wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1207836612-tXF3gLP7xAtCmoDZu+EXPg

"As for my husband, he knows that my fixation on whose heart rate is
higher is ridiculous. Still, I wish I knew what he thinks his maximum
is and how he knows it."

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

[[email protected]]

On Apr 10, 7:18*pm, Andrew Price > wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:12:40 -0700 (PDT), datakoll
>
> > wrote:
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl...
>
> "As for my husband, he knows that my fixation on whose heart rate is
> higher is ridiculous. Still, I wish I knew what he thinks his maximum
> is and how he knows it."
>
> I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
> came across this formula today:
>
> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

That's my HR when I read the NYT?

Actually that equation works spot on for me.

Joseph

[Andrew Price]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:27:07 -0700 (PDT),
" > wrote:

>> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
>That's my HR when I read the NYT?
>
>Actually that equation works spot on for me.

It's the first time I've seen one which not only takes age, but also
weight into account.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 10, 9:10*pm, Andrew Price > wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:27:07 -0700 (PDT),
>
> " > wrote:
> >> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
> >That's my HR when I read the NYT?
>
> >Actually that equation works spot on for me.
>
> It's the first time I've seen one which not only takes age, but also
> weight into account.

That struck me as well. Particularly since I am losing weight. I can't
see how my max HR is going to change by a few beats in a few months.

Joseph

[Donald Munro]

Andrew Price wrote:
> I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I came
> across this formula today:
>
> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Does it take relativistic effects into account ?

[Dan Gregory]

Andrew Price wrote:

> I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
> came across this formula today:
>
> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
It's about 30 low for me!

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:20:31 +0100, Dan Gregory
> wrote:

>Andrew Price wrote:
>
>> I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
>> came across this formula today:
>>
>> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>It's about 30 low for me!

16-18 beats too low for me. Just a bit above my AT HR.

[John Tserkezis]

Andrew Price wrote:

> I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
> came across this formula today:

> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Bzzt. Both give very similar answers for me - both completely useless.

As per the other poster, the above two account for *about* 80% or so of the
population.

That's great, till you find out you're not part of that 80%.

With that class of error range, the only way is to test it. And you don't
need a treadmill and wires hanging off your chest either, self-testing on a
path or perhaps back streets gives a viable enough answer.

Plenty good enough for those who aren't in the same league as those who are
tested for Hr Max, VO2 and such as a matter of course, in which case, this
cruder testing becomes a moot point anyway.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
> came across this formula today:
>
> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

That is amazingly close. The "traditional" 220-age has always given me a
heart rate too low.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Apr 10, 6:18 pm, Andrew Price > wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:12:40 -0700 (PDT), datakoll
>
> > wrote:
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl...
>
> "As for my husband, he knows that my fixation on whose heart rate is
> higher is ridiculous. Still, I wish I knew what he thinks his maximum
> is and how he knows it."
>
> I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
> came across this formula today:
>
> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Unless you're Chalo when he still weighed 400 pounds plus, and maybe
even then, the new formula puts all the brackets about 9% of the old
number higher up the scale. My Ciclosport HAC4 HRM broke after only
three years, so I replaced it with a cheap Sigma PC9 HRM. The HAC4 had
to have the max respiration rate and the breakpoints of exercise
regions fed manually; I did it by the old formula. The PC9 does it
automatically, and as usual I just busked the new equipment with a
hack and a prayer rather than RTFM (I have sixteen shelf-feet of high-
level computer software manuals still shrinkwrapped -- if I need a
manual, it is too difficult for me to use), so I missed the bit where
the PC9 automatically set up a 9% higher max than I had on the HAC4,
with the brackets correspondingly shifted. It's important, since I
regulate my entire riding regime not by cadence or even traffic
conditions ("Coming through!") but by putting my heart rate on 80 per
cent of max and holding it there; in short, I go for the max that
falls within the endurance/aerobic bracket, just short of generating
lactic acid in that useless bracket from 80-85 where you take all the
pain you masochists yearn for but gain none of the power benefits that
are supposed to pay for the acid burn. Shortly, in as little as a week
or two after I fitted the new cheap HRM, the Sigma PC9, I noticed that
I spent less time on favourite rides, and less time in each bracket
too, but that I was riding faster -- and feeling better for opening my
lungs out that extra bit. Since then I've lengthened all my favourite
short rides by around ten per cent distance, so that the time taken is
the same as before but the benefit is greater. So, on the whole, I
think that, for me at least, the new formula is A Good Thing. Since I
paid zero attention to the world class sports medicine authorities
working with the teams I played on when I was young (kick own arse for
wasting opportunity), I'd be interested in hearing which heart rate
brackets RBTers favour and why.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per datakoll:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1207836612-tXF3gLP7xAtCmoDZu+EXPg

Did I skim that article too fast, or did it not say anything
about the amount of blood a given heart can more per stroke?
--
PeteCresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per (PeteCresswell):
>Did I skim that article too fast, or did it not say anything
>about the amount of blood a given heart can more per stroke?

Oops, now I see it. But only a passing reference.

The idea that some hearts can have larger chambers/more
muscle/larger inflow/outflow vessels seems tb missing.
--
PeteCresswell

[Woland99]

On Apr 10, 9:12 am, datakoll > wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl...

Border line disinformation. For me HRM is a bit like metronome -
it is not to see how fast I can get but to keep steady manageable
tempo. If I understand the idea correctly - effective burning of
carbs and any burning of fat needs steady oxygen supply - so it
is better to keep yourself in mostly aerobic zone.

[Barry]

>> I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
>> came across this formula today:
>>
>> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
> That is amazingly close. The "traditional" 220-age has always given me a
> heart rate too low.

It also comes very close for me, closer, in fact, than the estimate that my
Polar heart rate monitor produced.

[Ted van de Weteringe]

Andrew Price wrote:
> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Are tou sure you put the brackets right? Seems a bit pointless to
separate 210 + 4.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 10, 10:45*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson >
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:20:31 +0100, Dan Gregory
>
> > wrote:
> >Andrew Price wrote:
>
> >> I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
> >> came across this formula today:
>
> >> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
> >It's about 30 low for me!
>
> 16-18 beats too low for me. *Just a bit above my AT HR.

Clearly you need to eat LOT more ice cream.

Joseph

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 1:50*am, Andre Jute > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 6:18 pm, Andrew Price > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:12:40 -0700 (PDT), datakoll
>
> > > wrote:
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl....
>
> > "As for my husband, he knows that my fixation on whose heart rate is
> > higher is ridiculous. Still, I wish I knew what he thinks his maximum
> > is and how he knows it."
>
> > I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
> > came across this formula today:
>
> > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
> Unless you're Chalo when he still weighed 400 pounds plus, and maybe
> even then, the new formula puts all the brackets about 9% of the old
> number higher up the scale. My Ciclosport HAC4 HRM broke after only
> three years, so I replaced it with a cheap Sigma PC9 HRM. The HAC4 had
> to have the max respiration rate and the breakpoints of exercise
> regions fed manually; I did it by the old formula. The PC9 does it
> automatically, and as usual I just busked the new equipment with a
> hack and a prayer rather than RTFM (I have sixteen shelf-feet of high-
> level computer software manuals still shrinkwrapped -- if I need a
> manual, it is too difficult for me to use), so I missed the bit where
> the PC9 automatically set up a 9% higher max than I had on the HAC4,
> with the brackets correspondingly shifted. It's important, since I
> regulate my entire riding regime not by cadence or even traffic
> conditions ("Coming through!") but by putting my heart rate on 80 per
> cent of max and holding it there; in short, I go for the max that
> falls within the endurance/aerobic bracket, just short of generating
> lactic acid in that useless bracket from 80-85 where you take all the
> pain you masochists yearn for but gain none of the power benefits that
> are supposed to pay for the acid burn. Shortly, in as little as a week
> or two after I fitted the new cheap HRM, the Sigma PC9, I noticed that
> I spent less time on favourite rides, and less time in each bracket
> too, but that I was riding faster -- and feeling better for opening my
> lungs out that extra bit. Since then I've lengthened all my favourite
> short rides by around ten per cent distance, so that the time taken is
> the same as before but the benefit is greater. So, on the whole, I
> think that, for me at least, the new formula is A Good Thing. Since I
> paid zero attention to the world class sports medicine authorities
> working with the teams I played on when I was young (kick own arse for
> wasting opportunity), I'd be interested in hearing which heart rate
> brackets RBTers favour and why.
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

Joseph

[Ted van de Weteringe]

wrote:
> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
> on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> population probably, but near usless for an individual.

Thanks, I am going to use that.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 2:47*am, Woland99 > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 9:12 am, datakoll > wrote:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl...
>
> Border line disinformation. For me HRM is a bit like metronome -
> it is not to see how fast I can get but to keep steady manageable
> tempo. If I understand the idea correctly - effective burning of
> carbs and any burning of fat needs steady oxygen supply - so it
> is better to keep yourself in mostly aerobic zone.

Fats and carbs will be burned at higher intensities as well, but I
agree that using HR is a nice way to keep the intensity at a level
that doesn't waste time by being too easy, nor too hard which could
result in less total work due to burnout.

Joseph

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 12:31*am, Ted van de Weteringe
> wrote:
> Andrew Price wrote:
> > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
> Are tou sure you put the brackets right? Seems a bit pointless to
> separate 210 + 4.

max hr formulas are techno-medico bull... do a standing out of the
saddle run up a tough incline, or hold a good sprint at the end of a
few hours on the road- you'll see your max or thereabouts; and you'll
see your max drop as you spend more time on the road- such as during
the spring. I read that eddy had a very low max, something like
150bpm...the point is that the max hr is a very personal thing, and
there is no formula or point in comparison to any other individual
than yourself; hr monitoring and bpm numbers are useful intelectual
exercises to help quantify the pain and serve as a distraction during
the activity, as an excuse to ease off or provide a mandate to
continue; but the activity concludes with results that essentually
speak for themselves and that being the object of the activity, the hr
values are irrelevant

[Donald Munro]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> 16-18 beats too low for me. Â*Just a bit above my AT HR.

wrote:
> Clearly you need to eat LOT more ice cream.

Ice cream is cheaper than bagels in NY these days ?

[Donald Munro]

wrote:
>> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
>> on measuring the circumfrence of your head.

Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
> Thanks, I am going to use that.

You must have a big head.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

aka Joseph Santaniello wrote:
> On Apr 10, 10:45 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson >
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:20:31 +0100, Dan Gregory
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> Andrew Price wrote:
>>>> I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
>>>> came across this formula today:
>>>> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>>> It's about 30 low for me!
>> 16-18 beats too low for me. Just a bit above my AT HR.
>
> Clearly you need to eat LOT more ice cream.
>
Maybe JFT's friend from Arkansas will bring some ice cream when he visits.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

? wrote:
> [...] I read that eddy had a very low max, something like
> 150bpm...

Eddy Mazzoleni, real life inspiration for the legendary Fabrizio
Mazzoleni: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Mazzoleni>?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[graham]

"Ted van de Weteringe" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Price wrote:
>> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
> Are tou sure you put the brackets right? Seems a bit pointless to separate
> 210 + 4.

As this appears to be the same formula as the one below then the missing
link between the 210 and the 4 is that this formula is gender specific:

210 minus 50% of your age minus 5% of your body weight (pounds) + 4 if male
and 0 if female = Estimated Maximum heart rate.

[Dan Gregory]

wrote:

> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
> on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
> to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

Thinking of formulae "off the top of my head" my MHR is the age of my
father when he died + the age of my mother when she died + 5
:-))

[Peter Grange]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
" > wrote:


>Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
>on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
>population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
>to find out what max HR is is to induce it.
>
How do you induce max heart rate, without finding out it won't go
_that_ fast and having the rate abruptly return to zero?

Pete

[John Tserkezis]

Peter Grange wrote:

> How do you induce max heart rate, without finding out it won't go
> _that_ fast and having the rate abruptly return to zero?

You clearly know about how the heart works then. You know, that fist-sized
red thing that pumps blood around your body. Just in case you weren't sure.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 11, 12:34 am, wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:31 am, Ted van de Weteringe
>
> > wrote:
> > Andrew Price wrote:
> > > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
> > Are tou sure you put the brackets right? Seems a bit pointless to
> > separate 210 + 4.
>
> max hr formulas are techno-medico bull... do a standing out of the
> saddle run up a tough incline, or hold a good sprint at the end of a
> few hours on the road- you'll see your max or thereabouts; and you'll
> see your max drop as you spend more time on the road- such as during
> the spring. I read that eddy had a very low max, something like
> 150bpm...the point is that the max hr is a very personal thing, and
> there is no formula or point in comparison to any other individual
> than yourself; hr monitoring and bpm numbers are useful intelectual
> exercises to help quantify the pain and serve as a distraction during
> the activity, as an excuse to ease off or provide a mandate to
> continue; but the activity concludes with results that essentually
> speak for themselves and that being the object of the activity, the hr
> values are irrelevant

Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up. A
good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up pretty
high up there. Getting your heart rate truly high is a pain in the ass
and I don't enjoy it that much. You should aim at getting dry heaves,
or even barfing. When I was younger I would do sprint repeats once a
weak. It was awful.

Andres

[Bob Schwartz]

wrote:
> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
> on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
> to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

Isn't there a correlation between nose length and the
number of doughnuts you can carry?

Bob Schwartz

[Tom Kunich]

"Donald Munro" > wrote in message
. com...
> wrote:
>>> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
>>> on measuring the circumfrence of your head.
>
> Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
>> Thanks, I am going to use that.
>
> You must have a big head.

Well, for certain you have a big mouth. Though my guess is that in person
you're really quiet.

[datakoll]

"Then there are the differences among sports. Swimmers, for example,
have lower heart rates when they swim than runners when they run. The
reason, Dr. O'Connor explained, is that during running, your heart has
to push blood against gravity to bring it to your head. During
swimming, your heart does not have to exert that extra force."
"Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up.
A
good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up
pretty
high up there."
In cycle riding position then what? Warming up, awakening lactose
cycles in the hands, arms, neck, tissue surounding cranial nerve
pathways on the neck and shoulders, back muscles takes several short
sprints up-standing? Better to stretch and jog before riding or
swimming.
Your warmup may indicate a training hole where the lactose threshold
is slow to respond. Read Carmichael/Armstrong's training manual. As I
ease up on the total mileage, my lactose threshold moves further away
into each ride. Before cutting back from daily 25 mile rides, that
threshold was bang off the start with no lag.
Somewhere here is written something about aerobic thresholds.
Practically, aerobic energy supply doesn't contribute to riding hard.
On pumping capacity: short frequent runs may give larger gains than
stressing the heart to max. Try squeezing a tennis ball in each hand
to pump blood back up your arms, relaxes the atrium.

[Tom Kunich]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Fats and carbs will be burned at higher intensities as well, but I
> agree that using HR is a nice way to keep the intensity at a level
> that doesn't waste time by being too easy, nor too hard which could
> result in less total work due to burnout.

So, Joe, you ride a bike only as a workout?

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 3:29*am, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> ? wrote:
> > [...] I read that eddy had a very low max, something like
> > 150bpm...
>
> Eddy Mazzoleni, real life inspiration for the legendary Fabrizio
> Mazzoleni: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Mazzoleni>?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

sorry; didn't think I had to be more specific

the legendary eddy.....

( you mean eddy the eagle ?
no, the merckx

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 7:20*am, " > wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:34 am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 12:31 am, Ted van de Weteringe
>
> > > wrote:
> > > Andrew Price wrote:
> > > > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
> > > Are tou sure you put the brackets right? Seems a bit pointless to
> > > separate 210 + 4.
>
> > max hr formulas are techno-medico bull... do a standing out of the
> > saddle run up a tough incline, or hold a good sprint at the end of a
> > few hours on the road- you'll see your max or thereabouts; and you'll
> > see your max drop as you spend more time on the road- such as during
> > the spring. I read that eddy had a very low max, something like
> > 150bpm...the point is that the max hr is a very personal thing, and
> > there is no formula or point in comparison to any other individual
> > than yourself; hr monitoring and bpm numbers are useful intelectual
> > exercises to help quantify the pain and serve as a distraction during
> > the activity, as an excuse to ease off or provide a mandate to
> > continue; but the activity concludes with results that essentually
> > speak for themselves and that being the object of the activity, the hr
> > values are irrelevant
>
> Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up. A
> good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
> good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
> up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up pretty
> high up there. Getting your heart rate truly high is a pain in the ass
> and I don't enjoy it that much. You should aim at getting dry heaves,
> or even barfing. When I was younger I would do sprint repeats once a
> weak. It was awful.
>
> Andres- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

warm up of course; I have to go about 20 min to get to some worthwhile
inclines, so I was speaking from a personal perspective.

but I was thinking a bit more last night after I posted and I wonder
if the max hr is more of a pain threshold; the point where one says
"enough !" where someone else chooses to continue, I always feel I can
do more but don't because the agony becomes greater- this is
especially true of roller workouts where there are fewer variables to
influence the outcome; and the truth is I get scared that I might be
damaging my heart so I start to ease off then- but then at least I
know I can go that hard and survive, ergo "permission to continue"

dry heaves or barfing...never got there while training; but to the
blackout point a few times, but that is meaningless because the
question when cycling is where do you want to go ? how fast do you
want to go ? faster than before ? or faster than someone else ?; an
interesting example I had reciently is last week I did a 3hr hilly
ride which I felt went very well and discvovered after that almost to
the date 1 year ago I had recorded the same route under very similar
conditions; the times marked at the usual markers were within minutes
of each other and the hr graphs when overlayed and compared kilometer
to kilometer, was almost parallel. so what changed ? I was a year
older and and maybe 2 kgs lighter; avg hr; max hr; times, avg speed,
less than 2% difference.

[Carl Sundquist]

"datakoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Then there are the differences among sports. Swimmers, for example,
> have lower heart rates when they swim than runners when they run. The
> reason, Dr. O'Connor explained, is that during running, your heart has
> to push blood against gravity to bring it to your head. During
> swimming, your heart does not have to exert that extra force."
> "Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up.
> A
> good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
> good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
> up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up
> pretty
> high up there."
> In cycle riding position then what? Warming up, awakening lactose
> cycles in the hands, arms, neck, tissue surounding cranial nerve
> pathways on the neck and shoulders, back muscles takes several short
> sprints up-standing? Better to stretch and jog before riding or
> swimming.
> Your warmup may indicate a training hole where the lactose threshold
> is slow to respond. Read Carmichael/Armstrong's training manual. As I
> ease up on the total mileage, my lactose threshold moves further away
> into each ride. Before cutting back from daily 25 mile rides, that
> threshold was bang off the start with no lag.
> Somewhere here is written something about aerobic thresholds.
> Practically, aerobic energy supply doesn't contribute to riding hard.
> On pumping capacity: short frequent runs may give larger gains than
> stressing the heart to max. Try squeezing a tennis ball in each hand
> to pump blood back up your arms, relaxes the atrium.

Swimming has lower HRs because the water helps remove heat from the body so
much better. Competition pools are kept at 78 degrees F.

[Carl Sundquist]

"Carl Sundquist" > wrote in message
...
>
> "datakoll" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Then there are the differences among sports. Swimmers, for example,
>> have lower heart rates when they swim than runners when they run. The
>> reason, Dr. O'Connor explained, is that during running, your heart has
>> to push blood against gravity to bring it to your head. During
>> swimming, your heart does not have to exert that extra force."
>> "Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up.
>> A
>> good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
>> good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
>> up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up
>> pretty
>> high up there."
>> In cycle riding position then what? Warming up, awakening lactose
>> cycles in the hands, arms, neck, tissue surounding cranial nerve
>> pathways on the neck and shoulders, back muscles takes several short
>> sprints up-standing? Better to stretch and jog before riding or
>> swimming.
>> Your warmup may indicate a training hole where the lactose threshold
>> is slow to respond. Read Carmichael/Armstrong's training manual. As I
>> ease up on the total mileage, my lactose threshold moves further away
>> into each ride. Before cutting back from daily 25 mile rides, that
>> threshold was bang off the start with no lag.
>> Somewhere here is written something about aerobic thresholds.
>> Practically, aerobic energy supply doesn't contribute to riding hard.
>> On pumping capacity: short frequent runs may give larger gains than
>> stressing the heart to max. Try squeezing a tennis ball in each hand
>> to pump blood back up your arms, relaxes the atrium.
>
> Swimming has lower HRs because the water helps remove heat from the body
> so much better. Competition pools are kept at 78 degrees F.

Also, wouldn't the blood descending from the head help to offset the
pressure needed to return the blood from the lower extremities back up to
the heart?

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 3:56*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Fats and carbs will be burned at higher intensities as well, but I
> > agree that using HR is a nice way to keep the intensity at a level
> > that doesn't waste time by being too easy, nor too hard which could
> > result in less total work due to burnout.
>
> So, Joe, you ride a bike only as a workout?

Nope. That's partly why I don't use an HRM either.

I only meant the comment in the context of someone trying to maximize
weight loss. Sure they would burn more by going harder, but it
wouldn't be something they could do for long enough.

Joseph

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 11, 10:06 am, wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:20 am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 12:34 am, wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 12:31 am, Ted van de Weteringe
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Andrew Price wrote:
> > > > > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
> > > > Are tou sure you put the brackets right? Seems a bit pointless to
> > > > separate 210 + 4.
>
> > > max hr formulas are techno-medico bull... do a standing out of the
> > > saddle run up a tough incline, or hold a good sprint at the end of a
> > > few hours on the road- you'll see your max or thereabouts; and you'll
> > > see your max drop as you spend more time on the road- such as during
> > > the spring. I read that eddy had a very low max, something like
> > > 150bpm...the point is that the max hr is a very personal thing, and
> > > there is no formula or point in comparison to any other individual
> > > than yourself; hr monitoring and bpm numbers are useful intelectual
> > > exercises to help quantify the pain and serve as a distraction during
> > > the activity, as an excuse to ease off or provide a mandate to
> > > continue; but the activity concludes with results that essentually
> > > speak for themselves and that being the object of the activity, the hr
> > > values are irrelevant
>
> > Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up. A
> > good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
> > good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
> > up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up pretty
> > high up there. Getting your heart rate truly high is a pain in the ass
> > and I don't enjoy it that much. You should aim at getting dry heaves,
> > or even barfing. When I was younger I would do sprint repeats once a
> > weak. It was awful.
>
> > Andres- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> warm up of course; I have to go about 20 min to get to some worthwhile
> inclines, so I was speaking from a personal perspective.
>
> but I was thinking a bit more last night after I posted and I wonder
> if the max hr is more of a pain threshold; the point where one says
> "enough !" where someone else chooses to continue, I always feel I can
> do more but don't because the agony becomes greater- this is
> especially true of roller workouts where there are fewer variables to
> influence the outcome; and the truth is I get scared that I might be
> damaging my heart so I start to ease off then- but then at least I
> know I can go that hard and survive, ergo "permission to continue"
>
> dry heaves or barfing...never got there while training; but to the
> blackout point a few times, but that is meaningless because the
> question when cycling is where do you want to go ? how fast do you
> want to go ? faster than before ? or faster than someone else ?; an
> interesting example I had reciently is last week I did a 3hr hilly
> ride which I felt went very well and discvovered after that almost to
> the date 1 year ago I had recorded the same route under very similar
> conditions; the times marked at the usual markers were within minutes
> of each other and the hr graphs when overlayed and compared kilometer
> to kilometer, was almost parallel. so what changed ? I was a year
> older and and maybe 2 kgs lighter; avg hr; max hr; times, avg speed,
> less than 2% difference.

I was thinking that at the point that you feel like barfing, passing
out, dizy, etc, you are pretty close to your max heart rate. In AT
(aerobic threshold) you feel the exhaustion and pain while trying to
maintain AT. This is when you are going close to max on a long hill.
This is the point that you produce lactic acid at the same rate or
slightly higher rate than you get rid of it. It hurts because you
accumulate lactic acid while your heart and breathing increase to get
rid of it.

With sprints, you don't necessarily feel the pain until a little after
the all out effort. In sprinting, you engage your anaerobic system.
and go until your legs give out. The all out part of a sprint may last
10 to 20 seconds. After that you can't go any more because your legs
are flooded with lactic acid. Then it takes a few seconds for your
heart to catch up to send enough blood to the muscles to start getting
rid of lactic acid. So, usually in the sprint, there is a delayed
effect where the heart does not increase and then when you stop, it
shoots up.

So, let's say that you are riding at around your AT and it is 170. At
that point, you sprint. If you look at your heart rate monitor it may
go to 174-176. When your legs give out and you stop, your heart will
keep going up to 185-190 and then it will start going down.

After a few sprints, the max heart rate that your monitor reads will
be pretty close to your true max, I think.

For some reason, in my case, when my heart rate and respiration shoots
up, I start to dry heave. If I do lots of sprints I end up with a
headache. I haven't had that feeling in a long time. Now, I am mister
aerobic. I can go forever and keep a hard effort within the Aerobic
range. However, I rarely get into AT or sprint, and I really don't
like to either.


Andres

[Tom Kunich]

> wrote in message
...
>
> I only meant the comment in the context of someone trying to maximize
> weight loss. Sure they would burn more by going harder, but it
> wouldn't be something they could do for long enough.

Joseph, I think that people who ride to lose weight or to be "athletic" and
that sort of thing have a hard time maintaining a riding lifestyle. When
they start getting close to their target they begin to lose motivation for
riding.

I ride because I like to ride. I've done just about every sort of riding
there is. For instance, I ride with a couple of other people that ride like
me and today we were riding down a bike path and without even discussing it
turned down a dirt track and rode a couple of miles on gravel on road bikes
without any problems. I've noticed that a couple of people that ride with us
most of the time cannot stand getting off of asphalt unless it's onto
cement.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 9:51*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I only meant the comment in the context of someone trying to maximize
> > weight loss. Sure they would burn more by going harder, but it
> > wouldn't be something they could do for long enough.
>
> Joseph, I think that people who ride to lose weight or to be "athletic" and
> that sort of thing have a hard time maintaining a riding lifestyle. When
> they start getting close to their target they begin to lose motivation for
> riding.
>

Perhaps. But I also think the definetly run the risk of not
accomplishing much weight loss if they ride too hard. Ride hard for 1
hour and come home famished and pig out, and be too beat to ride the
next day. Or ride easy and not be famished and do it again tomorrow. A
lot less mental stress. 1 step forward each day vs 3 steps forward,
and 2 back.

> I ride because I like to ride. I've done just about every sort of riding
> there is. For instance, I ride with a couple of other people that ride like
> me and today we were riding down a bike path and without even discussing it
> turned down a dirt track and rode a couple of miles on gravel on road bikes
> without any problems. I've noticed that a couple of people that ride with us
> most of the time cannot stand getting off of asphalt unless it's onto
> cement.

I see it as killing two birds with one stone. I like riding, and I
like being (sort of) fit. My bike interests go up and down in
different directions. Sometimes it's MTB for months, other times
fixed, then TT bike, and I even contemplate getting a low-racer
recumbent!

I am on a team of sorts (anyone who want to be on it can be, so I
guess it's more like a club) and we had our second group training ride
the other day. We practiced echelon riding. Speaking with a few guys,
I found out that this was their 2nd or 3rd ride for the year. They had
been going to health clubs and "spinning" to keep in shape. We had a
mild winter so I've been out on the road for hours every week because
it's fun. Riding indoors is like punishment if you ask me. I wondered
why they bother at all if they don't like it enough to do it any
chance they get.

Funny you mention that about dirt roads. A few rides ago with 2
buddies who have similar interests, we were on a long meandering loop
(riding fast) and found ourselves posed with the choice of 5km of dirt
road or 5km of asphalt to get where we were going. We chose the dirt
and played Eroica the who way arguing over who got to be Cancellara.

Joseph

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 2:38*pm, " > wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:06 am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 7:20 am, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 12:34 am, wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 11, 12:31 am, Ted van de Weteringe
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > Andrew Price wrote:
> > > > > > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
> > > > > Are tou sure you put the brackets right? Seems a bit pointless to
> > > > > separate 210 + 4.
>
> > > > max hr formulas are techno-medico bull... do a standing out of the
> > > > saddle run up a tough incline, or hold a good sprint at the end of a
> > > > few hours on the road- you'll see your max or thereabouts; and you'll
> > > > see your max drop as you spend more time on the road- such as during
> > > > the spring. I read that eddy had a very low max, something like
> > > > 150bpm...the point is that the max hr is a very personal thing, and
> > > > there is no formula or point in comparison to any other individual
> > > > than yourself; hr monitoring and bpm numbers are useful intelectual
> > > > exercises to help quantify the pain and serve as a distraction during
> > > > the activity, as an excuse to ease off or provide a mandate to
> > > > continue; but the activity concludes with results that essentually
> > > > speak for themselves and that being the object of the activity, the hr
> > > > values are irrelevant
>
> > > Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up. A
> > > good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
> > > good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
> > > up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up pretty
> > > high up there. Getting your heart rate truly high is a pain in the ass
> > > and I don't enjoy it that much. You should aim at getting dry heaves,
> > > or even barfing. When I was younger I would do sprint repeats once a
> > > weak. It was awful.
>
> > > Andres- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > warm up of course; I have to go about 20 min to get to some worthwhile
> > inclines, so I was speaking from a personal perspective.
>
> > but I was thinking a bit more last night after I posted and I wonder
> > if the max hr is more of a pain threshold; the point where one says
> > "enough !" where someone else chooses to continue, I always feel I can
> > do more but don't because the agony becomes greater- this is
> > especially true of roller workouts where there are fewer variables to
> > influence the outcome; and the truth is I get scared that I might be
> > damaging my heart so I start to ease off then- but then at least I
> > know I can go that hard and survive, ergo "permission to continue"
>
> > dry heaves or barfing...never got there while training; but to the
> > blackout point a few times, but that is meaningless because the
> > question when cycling is where do you want to go ? how fast do you
> > want to go ? faster than before ? or faster than someone else ?; an
> > interesting example I had reciently is last week I did a 3hr hilly
> > ride which I felt went very well and discvovered after that almost to
> > the date 1 year ago I had recorded the same route under very similar
> > conditions; the times marked at the usual markers were within minutes
> > of each other and the hr graphs when overlayed and compared kilometer
> > to kilometer, was almost parallel. so what changed ? I was a year
> > older and and maybe 2 kgs lighter; avg hr; max hr; times, avg speed,
> > less than 2% difference.
>
> I was thinking that at the point that you feel like barfing, passing
> out, dizy, etc, you are pretty close to your max heart rate. In AT
> (aerobic threshold) you feel the exhaustion and pain while trying to
> maintain AT. This is when you are going close to max on a long hill.
> This is the point that you produce lactic acid at the same rate or
> slightly higher rate than you get rid of it. It hurts because you
> accumulate lactic acid while your heart and breathing increase to get
> rid of it.
>
> With sprints, you don't necessarily feel the pain until a little after
> the all out effort. In sprinting, you engage your anaerobic system.
> and go until your legs give out. The all out part of a sprint may last
> 10 to 20 seconds. After that you can't go any more because your legs
> are flooded with lactic acid. Then it takes a few seconds for your
> heart to catch up to send enough blood to the muscles to start getting
> rid of lactic acid. So, usually in the sprint, there is a delayed
> effect where the heart does not increase and then when you stop, it
> shoots up.
>
> So, let's say that you are riding at around your AT and it is 170. At
> that point, you sprint. If you look at your heart rate monitor it may
> go to 174-176. When your legs give out and you stop, your heart will
> keep going up to 185-190 and then it will start going down.
>
> After a few sprints, the max heart rate that your monitor reads will
> be pretty close to your true max, I think.
>
> For some reason, in my case, when my heart rate and respiration shoots
> up, I start to dry heave. If I do lots of sprints I end up with a
> headache. I haven't had that feeling in a long time. Now, I am mister
> aerobic. I can go forever and keep a hard effort within the Aerobic
> range. However, I rarely get into AT or sprint, and I really don't
> like to either.
>
> Andres- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

the numbers you cite are fairly close to what I see; as I used the at
threshold to achieve personal best times; on rollers I knew I could go
all out the last 2 1/2 to 3 min. tops- but then that would be it- so I
saved that for the end of a workout; on the road, trying personal best
out and back circuit it was a question of maintaining a sustainable
level of activity; when I had to stop for a light the lactic acid
would flood my legs and cause real groaning agony but when the light
turned green again getting back up to speed was a way to flush the
lactic out. I can't say I ever had an effective sprint on the flat;
but the uphill was the one where you blew before the crest or had
enough to keep it rolling over the top- by my experience the max hr
was neared on the uphill but by virtue of the fact that the hr max
recorded being about the same as the max on the indoor roller yet I am
able to continue on the road I believe other factors such as
overheating has as much if not more to do with the recorded hr max
than lactate acid buildup in those few minutes of extreme activity;
still, when I ease off, is it really because I am forced to or is it
because I choose to? I always believe the latter, and that there is
something more to give, but my mind finds some excuse to give in than
to persist and that might be the difference between someone who is a
champion racer and someone who is not (as I am not).

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 11:43*am, "
> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 3:56*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > Fats and carbs will be burned at higher intensities as well, but I
> > > agree that using HR is a nice way to keep the intensity at a level
> > > that doesn't waste time by being too easy, nor too hard which could
> > > result in less total work due to burnout.
>
> > So, Joe, you ride a bike only as a workout?
>
> Nope. That's partly why I don't use an HRM either.
>
> I only meant the comment in the context of someone trying to maximize
> weight loss. Sure they would burn more by going harder, but it
> wouldn't be something they could do for long enough.
>
> Joseph

going harder you use up the blood sugar in your system; like burning
gasoline- going slower over a longer period of time it is said burns
more fat cells even though the caloric expenditure may be numerically
less; further, post ride effects should be considered, going harder
will result in more muscle mass to accomodate the physical strain of a
regular activity whereas an extended duration won't lead to bigger
muscles, just better definition of what is already there by
reducuction of fatty tissue overall

[Tom Kunich]

> wrote in message
...
>
> going harder you use up the blood sugar in your system; like burning
> gasoline- going slower over a longer period of time it is said burns
> more fat cells even though the caloric expenditure may be numerically
> less; further, post ride effects should be considered, going harder
> will result in more muscle mass to accomodate the physical strain of a
> regular activity whereas an extended duration won't lead to bigger
> muscles, just better definition of what is already there by
> reducuction of fatty tissue overall

There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very hard
over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very hard
your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone 2. But
the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for work is Work
= Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.

Now you can argue that someone that is riding faster can cover more distance
in a given time and hence increase his work load. That's correct but most
people define a ride by distance and not time. That is they say, "Let's ride
to Crockville for a cup of coffee and then return."

[Barry]

> There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very hard
> over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very hard
> your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone 2. But
> the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for work is Work
> = Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.

Actually, Work = Force x Distance, and the force here includes air resistance,
which does depend on speed.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 3:37*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > going harder you use up the blood sugar in your system; like burning
> > gasoline- going slower over a longer period of time it is said burns
> > more fat cells even though the caloric expenditure may be numerically
> > less; further, post ride effects should be considered, going harder
> > will result in more muscle mass to accomodate the physical strain of a
> > regular activity whereas an extended duration won't lead to bigger
> > muscles, just better definition of what is already there by
> > reducuction of fatty tissue overall
>
> There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very hard
> over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very hard
> your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone 2. But
> the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for work is Work
> = Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.
>
> Now you can argue that someone that is riding faster can cover more distance
> in a given time and hence increase his work load. That's correct but most
> people define a ride by distance and not time. That is they say, "Let's ride
> to Crockville for a cup of coffee and then return."

On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
with speed. You are american engineer yes?

Credo

[Tom Kunich]

"Barry" > wrote in message
...
>> There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very
>> hard over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very
>> hard your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone
>> 2. But the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for
>> work is Work = Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.
>
> Actually, Work = Force x Distance, and the force here includes air
> resistance, which does depend on speed.

My apologies and of course you're correct.

[Tom Kunich]

> wrote in message
...
> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very
> > hard
> > over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very
> > hard
> > your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone 2.
> > But
> > the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for work is
> > Work
> > = Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.
> >
> > Now you can argue that someone that is riding faster can cover more
> > distance
> > in a given time and hence increase his work load. That's correct but
> > most
> > people define a ride by distance and not time. That is they say, "Let's
> > ride
> > to Crockville for a cup of coffee and then return."
>
> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> with speed. You are american engineer yes?

As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula. However,
the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed but
in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is reduced.

Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight going
fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly. And yet
riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances seems to work well
at reducing weight.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 4:14*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very
> > > hard
> > > over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very
> > > hard
> > > your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone 2.
> > > But
> > > the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for work is
> > > Work
> > > = Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.
>
> > > Now you can argue that someone that is riding faster can cover more
> > > distance
> > > in a given time and hence increase his work load. That's correct but
> > > most
> > > people define a ride by distance and not time. That is they say, "Let's
> > > ride
> > > to Crockville for a cup of coffee and then return."
>
> > On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> > of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> > horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> > with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>
> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula. However,
> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed but
> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is reduced.
>
> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight going
> fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly. And yet
> riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances seems to work well
> at reducing weight.

Think about two riders who ride 10 km, maybe to coffee shop. Rider 1
ride at 10 m/s and he is arrived after 1000 s. Rider 2 ride at 12 m/s
and he is arrived after 833 s. Rider 1 power is 182 w. Rider 2 power
is 300 w.

Rider 1 work = 182 * 1000 = 182000
Rider 2 work = 300 * 833 = 249900

Rider 2 go 20% more faster an he do 37% more work.

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html

What is "speed regime of bicyclists". I try the translator but it
gives strange ideas.

Credo

[Ben C]

On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> wrote in message
> ...
>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
[...]
>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>
> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula. However,
> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed but
> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is reduced.

Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
quite a bit more.

Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.

Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
minutes and 742 Calories.

The calculator assumes the human body has the same mechanical efficiency
at 100W as it does at 200W so this is just the effect of the wind.

> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
> seems to work well at reducing weight.

I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.

[Mark]

Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> "Carl Sundquist" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "datakoll" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Then there are the differences among sports. Swimmers, for example,
>>> have lower heart rates when they swim than runners when they run. The
>>> reason, Dr. O'Connor explained, is that during running, your heart has
>>> to push blood against gravity to bring it to your head. During
>>> swimming, your heart does not have to exert that extra force."
>>> "Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up.
>>> A
>>> good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
>>> good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
>>> up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up
>>> pretty
>>> high up there."
>>> In cycle riding position then what? Warming up, awakening lactose
>>> cycles in the hands, arms, neck, tissue surounding cranial nerve
>>> pathways on the neck and shoulders, back muscles takes several short
>>> sprints up-standing? Better to stretch and jog before riding or
>>> swimming.
>>> Your warmup may indicate a training hole where the lactose threshold
>>> is slow to respond. Read Carmichael/Armstrong's training manual. As I
>>> ease up on the total mileage, my lactose threshold moves further away
>>> into each ride. Before cutting back from daily 25 mile rides, that
>>> threshold was bang off the start with no lag.
>>> Somewhere here is written something about aerobic thresholds.
>>> Practically, aerobic energy supply doesn't contribute to riding hard.
>>> On pumping capacity: short frequent runs may give larger gains than
>>> stressing the heart to max. Try squeezing a tennis ball in each hand
>>> to pump blood back up your arms, relaxes the atrium.
>>
>> Swimming has lower HRs because the water helps remove heat from the
>> body so much better. Competition pools are kept at 78 degrees F.
>
> Also, wouldn't the blood descending from the head help to offset the
> pressure needed to return the blood from the lower extremities back up
> to the heart?

It's plausible that that would offset some, but blood volume from heart
upward has got to be far less than blood volume from heart downward,
plus the vertical distance is so much less on the upper side than the lower.

Mark J.

[Tom Kunich]

"Ben C" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> [...]
>>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
>>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
>>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
>>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>>
>> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
>> However,
>> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
>> but
>> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
>> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
>> reduced.
>
> Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
> quite a bit more.
>
> Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
> 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
>
> Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
> minutes and 742 Calories.

However, let's use some reasonable numbers:

15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
Cyclist.

That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.

Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
much shorter rides.

>> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
>> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
>> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
>> seems to work well at reducing weight.
>
> I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
> fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.

Indeed.

[datakoll]

On Apr 11, 12:35*pm, "Carl Sundquist" > wrote:
> "Carl Sundquist" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "datakoll" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> "Then there are the differences among sports. Swimmers, for example,
> >> have lower heart rates when they swim than runners when they run. The
> >> reason, Dr. O'Connor explained, is that during running, your heart has
> >> to push blood against gravity to bring it to your head. During
> >> swimming, your heart does not have to exert that extra force."
> >> "Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up.
> >> A
> >> good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
> >> good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
> >> up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up
> >> pretty
> >> high up there."
> >> In cycle riding position then what? Warming up, awakening lactose
> >> cycles in the hands, arms, neck, tissue surounding cranial nerve
> >> pathways on the neck and shoulders, back muscles takes several short
> >> sprints up-standing? *Better to stretch and jog before riding or
> >> swimming.
> >> Your warmup may indicate a training hole where the lactose threshold
> >> is slow to respond. Read Carmichael/Armstrong's training manual. As I
> >> ease up on the total mileage, my lactose threshold moves further away
> >> into each ride. Before cutting back from daily 25 mile rides, that
> >> threshold was bang off the start with no lag.
> >> Somewhere here is written something about aerobic thresholds.
> >> Practically, aerobic energy supply doesn't contribute to riding hard.
> >> On pumping capacity: short frequent runs may give larger gains than
> >> stressing the heart to max. Try squeezing a tennis ball in each hand
> >> to pump blood back up your arms, relaxes the atrium.
>
> > Swimming has lower HRs because the water helps remove heat from the body
> > so much better. Competition pools are kept at 78 degrees F.
>
> Also, wouldn't the blood descending from the head help to offset the
> pressure needed to return the blood from the lower extremities back up to
> the heart?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[datakoll]

BLOOD POOLS itsa hit!!!! BLOOD POOOOOLS YAH YAH ect

sounds like the villagers on on the way up your driveway

ever watch the single red cell jam through a single wall capillary?
that's where the action is
no pressure and .....
please eard post 33

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 8:15*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Ben C" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ....
> >>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> >>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> >>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> >>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>
> >> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
> >> However,
> >> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
> >> but
> >> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> >> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
> >> reduced.
>
> > Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
> > quite a bit more.
>
> > Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
> > 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
>
> > Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
> > minutes and 742 Calories.
>
> However, let's use some reasonable numbers:
>
> 15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
> Cyclist.
>
> That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
> watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
> until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
> slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.
>
> Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
> distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
> much shorter rides.
>
> >> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
> >> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
> >> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
> >> seems to work well at reducing weight.
>
> > I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
> > fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.
>
> Indeed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat

[datakoll]

On Apr 11, 5:37*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > going harder you use up the blood sugar in your system; like burning
> > gasoline- going slower over a longer period of time it is said burns
> > more fat cells even though the caloric expenditure may be numerically
> > less; further, post ride effects should be considered, going harder
> > will result in more muscle mass to accomodate the physical strain of a
> > regular activity whereas an extended duration won't lead to bigger
> > muscles, just better definition of what is already there by
> > reducuction of fatty tissue overall
>
> There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very hard
> over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very hard
> your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone 2. But
> the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for work is Work
> = Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.
>
> Now you can argue that someone that is riding faster can cover more distance
> in a given time and hence increase his work load. That's correct but most
> people define a ride by distance and not time. That is they say, "Let's ride
> to Crockville for a cup of coffee and then return."

There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very
hard
over any specific length of road.

[Howard Kveck]

In article >, "Carl Sundquist" >
wrote:

> "datakoll" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Then there are the differences among sports. Swimmers, for example,
> > have lower heart rates when they swim than runners when they run. The
> > reason, Dr. O'Connor explained, is that during running, your heart has
> > to push blood against gravity to bring it to your head. During
> > swimming, your heart does not have to exert that extra force."
> > "Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up.
> > A
> > good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
> > good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
> > up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up
> > pretty
> > high up there."
> > In cycle riding position then what? Warming up, awakening lactose
> > cycles in the hands, arms, neck, tissue surounding cranial nerve
> > pathways on the neck and shoulders, back muscles takes several short
> > sprints up-standing? Better to stretch and jog before riding or
> > swimming.
> > Your warmup may indicate a training hole where the lactose threshold
> > is slow to respond. Read Carmichael/Armstrong's training manual. As I
> > ease up on the total mileage, my lactose threshold moves further away
> > into each ride. Before cutting back from daily 25 mile rides, that
> > threshold was bang off the start with no lag.
> > Somewhere here is written something about aerobic thresholds.
> > Practically, aerobic energy supply doesn't contribute to riding hard.
> > On pumping capacity: short frequent runs may give larger gains than
> > stressing the heart to max. Try squeezing a tennis ball in each hand
> > to pump blood back up your arms, relaxes the atrium.
>
> Swimming has lower HRs because the water helps remove heat from the body so
> much better. Competition pools are kept at 78 degrees F.

Do swimmers go faster in the turns?

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Donald Munro]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> Do swimmers go faster in the turns?

They do loops, not turns.

[Michael Press]

In article >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very
> > > hard
> > > over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very
> > > hard
> > > your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone 2.
> > > But
> > > the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for work is
> > > Work
> > > = Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.
> > >
> > > Now you can argue that someone that is riding faster can cover more
> > > distance
> > > in a given time and hence increase his work load. That's correct but
> > > most
> > > people define a ride by distance and not time. That is they say, "Let's
> > > ride
> > > to Crockville for a cup of coffee and then return."
> >
> > On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> > of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> > horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> > with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>
> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula. However,
> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed but
> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is reduced.
>
> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight going
> fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly. And yet
> riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances seems to work well
> at reducing weight.

To lose weight means to burn fat.
Blasting out of the chocks and riding near
red line for an hour will burn some fat and
totally deplete glycogen.

Riding hard for two or three hours, conserving
glycogen will burn more fat.

Either case eat some good carbohydrates
immediately after the ride to feed the muscles.

--
Michael Press

[Donald Munro]

raamman wrote:
> going harder you use up the blood sugar in your system; like burning
> gasoline- going slower over a longer period of time it is said burns more
> fat cells even though the caloric expenditure may be numerically less

Deja Vu and misleading myths:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/8102d75b512fbce3/ac013808ed92a133?lnk=gst&q=fat+burning+zone+coggan#ac013808ed92a133>

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> [...]I've noticed that a couple of
> people that ride with us most of the time cannot stand getting off of
> asphalt unless it's onto cement.
>
Huh? Asphalt IS a cement derived from crude oil.

Furthermore, there have never been any roads built comprised primarily
of either asphalt or Portland cement.

Since this thread is cross-posted to RBT, please try to be technically
correct.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

aka Joseph Santaniello wrote:
> [...]
> I see it as killing two birds with one stone. I like riding, and I
> like being (sort of) fit. My bike interests go up and down in
> different directions. Sometimes it's MTB for months, other times
> fixed, then TT bike, and I even contemplate getting a low-racer
> recumbent![...]

Forget about the lowracer. You will annoy everyone else on windy days
when they are struggling against the wind, while you are in the zone
where the wind is greatly slowed by viscous drag along the boundary with
the ground.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
>> There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very
>> hard over any specific length of road.

credo.digatti wrote:
> You are american engineer yes?

American engineer, climatologist, astrophysicist, nuclear physicist,
general and koach.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:36:06 -0500, Tom Sherman
> > may have said:
>
>> aka Joseph Santaniello wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I see it as killing two birds with one stone. I like riding, and I
>>> like being (sort of) fit. My bike interests go up and down in
>>> different directions. Sometimes it's MTB for months, other times
>>> fixed, then TT bike, and I even contemplate getting a low-racer
>>> recumbent![...]
>> Forget about the lowracer. You will annoy everyone else on windy days
>> when they are struggling against the wind, while you are in the zone
>> where the wind is greatly slowed by viscous drag along the boundary with
>> the ground.
>
> To equalize the results, add a 2M vertical mast with a decorative flag
> of about 1 square meter area. If anyone looks askance, claim it's for
> safety reasons. (It is poor sportsmanship to deploy a spinnaker when
> running before a stiff tailwind, BTW.)
>
On a very windy spring day, I was on a group ride on a recumbent with a
front fairing [1]. When we turned to ride parallel to the wind, I was
able to "sail" along the flats at 17-18 mph without pedaling, much to
the annoyance of the upright cyclists. ;)

[1] RANS Rocket with Muller Windwrap.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:31:04 -0500, Tom Sherman
> > may have said:
>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> [...]I've noticed that a couple of
>>> people that ride with us most of the time cannot stand getting off of
>>> asphalt unless it's onto cement.
>>>
>> Huh? Asphalt IS a cement derived from crude oil.
>>
>> Furthermore, there have never been any roads built comprised primarily
>> of either asphalt or Portland cement.
>>
>> Since this thread is cross-posted to RBT, please try to be technically
>> correct.
>
> Ghods forbid that anyone would perchance be confused by the use of
> common vernacular in rbt.
>
That was not really the point.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very
>>> hard over any specific length of road.
>
> credo.digatti wrote:
>> You are american engineer yes?
>
> American engineer, climatologist, astrophysicist, nuclear physicist,
> general and koach.
>
You forgot political scientist and economist.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Werehatrack]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:31:04 -0500, Tom Sherman
> may have said:

>Tom Kunich wrote:
>> [...]I've noticed that a couple of
>> people that ride with us most of the time cannot stand getting off of
>> asphalt unless it's onto cement.
>>
>Huh? Asphalt IS a cement derived from crude oil.
>
>Furthermore, there have never been any roads built comprised primarily
>of either asphalt or Portland cement.
>
>Since this thread is cross-posted to RBT, please try to be technically
>correct.

Ghods forbid that anyone would perchance be confused by the use of
common vernacular in rbt.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Werehatrack]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:36:06 -0500, Tom Sherman
> may have said:

aka Joseph Santaniello wrote:
>> [...]
>> I see it as killing two birds with one stone. I like riding, and I
>> like being (sort of) fit. My bike interests go up and down in
>> different directions. Sometimes it's MTB for months, other times
>> fixed, then TT bike, and I even contemplate getting a low-racer
>> recumbent![...]
>
>Forget about the lowracer. You will annoy everyone else on windy days
>when they are struggling against the wind, while you are in the zone
>where the wind is greatly slowed by viscous drag along the boundary with
>the ground.

To equalize the results, add a 2M vertical mast with a decorative flag
of about 1 square meter area. If anyone looks askance, claim it's for
safety reasons. (It is poor sportsmanship to deploy a spinnaker when
running before a stiff tailwind, BTW.)

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 12, 12:29*am, Donald Munro > wrote:
> raamman wrote:
> > going harder you use up the blood sugar in your system; like burning
> > gasoline- going slower over a longer period of time it is said burns more
> > fat cells even though the caloric expenditure may be numerically less
>
> Deja Vu and misleading myths:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/...>


pulling a single post from 2000ad and citing it to prop up the
misleading myth title is very convincing to some, I guess...but is
meaningless when placed alongside the the body of contrary
documentation I have come across over many many years. you might try
experimenting with fasting a few days and breaking that with foods and
drinks of varying glycemic index values to gain a more comprehensive
and insightful knowledge of misleading myths than a single post and
citation could ever provide

[Ted van de Weteringe]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> Do swimmers go faster in the turns?

Funny but yes! Compare world records from the Olympic pool and the short
course (more turns). Another thing swimmers and cyclists have in common:
they don't dope
http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/article/13299241/2008/03/23/12083139.jpg

[[email protected]]

On Apr 12, 3:15*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Ben C" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ....
> >>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> >>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> >>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> >>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>
> >> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
> >> However,
> >> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
> >> but
> >> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> >> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
> >> reduced.
>
> > Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
> > quite a bit more.
>
> > Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
> > 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
>
> > Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
> > minutes and 742 Calories.
>
> However, let's use some reasonable numbers:
>
> 15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
> Cyclist.
>
> That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
> watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
> until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
> slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.

Using http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm I get that a 15mph
30mi ride requires about 598 calories. A 20mph 30mi ride uses 887
calories. This is on the drops, all default values.

If the ride at 15mph was done at say 65% of max HR, that means about
40% of the calories come from fat. So about 240 from stored fat.

The 20mph ride is then probably about 80% of max HR (assuming same
rider!) and about 25% of the colores come from fats. 25% of 887 is 222
calories.

These numbers are estimates, so the difference may be smaller, or go
the other way, but the point is there that riding harder won't help
burn that much more fat if any, but will be much more stressfull. Sur
ethe rider will get stronger, but if weight loss is the major goal
that doesn't really matter.

I think about all those overweight people sweating their asses off
with red faces on elliptical trainers at health clubs going full tilt
getting nowhere literally and figuratively. (Pun intended, both of
them!)

Joseph


> Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
> distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
> much shorter rides.
>
> >> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
> >> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
> >> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
> >> seems to work well at reducing weight.
>
> > I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
> > fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.
>
> Indeed.

[Werehatrack]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:39:26 -0500, Tom Sherman
> may have said:

>Werehatrack wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:31:04 -0500, Tom Sherman
>> > may have said:
>>
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> [...]I've noticed that a couple of
>>>> people that ride with us most of the time cannot stand getting off of
>>>> asphalt unless it's onto cement.
>>>>
>>> Huh? Asphalt IS a cement derived from crude oil.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, there have never been any roads built comprised primarily
>>> of either asphalt or Portland cement.
>>>
>>> Since this thread is cross-posted to RBT, please try to be technically
>>> correct.
>>
>> Ghods forbid that anyone would perchance be confused by the use of
>> common vernacular in rbt.
>>
>That was not really the point.

See the discussion of "alloy" in another thread. As far back as the
late '60s, the Beverly Hillbillies documented the fact that the common
vernacular uses "cement" as a synonym for "Portland-cement-based
concrete" the same way that "asphalt" (the specific cementing agent in
asphaltic concrete) has become the shorthand for the other form. The
battle for precision was lost long ago; the paradigm has shifted.
Bristle all you want; the language has no arbiter but its users.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> aka Joseph Santaniello wrote:
>> [...]
>> I see it as killing two birds with one stone. I like riding, and I
>> like being (sort of) fit. My bike interests go up and down in
>> different directions. Sometimes it's MTB for months, other times
>> fixed, then TT bike, and I even contemplate getting a low-racer
>> recumbent![...]
>
> Forget about the lowracer. You will annoy everyone else on windy days when
> they are struggling against the wind, while you are in the zone where the
> wind is greatly slowed by viscous drag along the boundary with the ground.

The above advantage of a lowracer does not matter in the least when going up
a hill. Unfortunately for recumbents, the world is full of hills. It is fun
to go down them on a recumbent, but it is a misery to go up them on a
recumbent. Everyone in the world knows this except Tom Sherman.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Andrew Price]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:54:26 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

>Well, for certain you have a big mouth.

<ring ring>

Hello Pot, this is the Kettle speaking ...

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:39:26 -0500, Tom Sherman
> > may have said:
>
>> Werehatrack wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:31:04 -0500, Tom Sherman
>>> > may have said:
>>>
>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> [...]I've noticed that a couple of
>>>>> people that ride with us most of the time cannot stand getting off of
>>>>> asphalt unless it's onto cement.
>>>>>
>>>> Huh? Asphalt IS a cement derived from crude oil.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, there have never been any roads built comprised primarily
>>>> of either asphalt or Portland cement.
>>>>
>>>> Since this thread is cross-posted to RBT, please try to be technically
>>>> correct.
>>>
>>> Ghods forbid that anyone would perchance be confused by the use of
>>> common vernacular in rbt.
>>>
>> That was not really the point.
>

The major point is that Kunich is a know it all, and therefore should be
corrected when in error. :)

> See the discussion of "alloy" in another thread. As far back as the
> late '60s, the Beverly Hillbillies documented the fact that the common
> vernacular uses "cement" as a synonym for "Portland-cement-based
> concrete" the same way that "asphalt" (the specific cementing agent in
> asphaltic concrete) has become the shorthand for the other form. The
> battle for precision was lost long ago; the paradigm has shifted.

Should we let a bad 1960's television show determine the language? Is
there a civilized planet I can emigrate to? ;)

As for precision in the language, I could be sued for negligence if I
made such an error in a deliverable.

Since this is "tech" and not "soc", "misc", etc, we should hold
ourselves to higher standards.

> Bristle all you want; the language has no arbiter but its users.

When I was a graduate student TA teaching civil engineering materials
laboratory classes, I told the students that confusing "cement" and
"concrete" was completely unacceptable.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Ben C]

On 2008-04-12, Tom Sherman > wrote:
[...]
> When I was a graduate student TA teaching civil engineering materials
> laboratory classes, I told the students that confusing "cement" and
> "concrete" was completely unacceptable.

So what are roads made of?

Here we have broadly two kinds of road. The first kind are grey or
reddish-grey, formed from slabs noticeably joined up every 50 to 100
metres, are noisy to drive on and produce a lot of spray when it's
raining. But they apparently last forever. We call those "concrete".

The other kind are smooth, black, much quieter and have more grip, but
seem to need more frequent resurfacing. We still call those "tarmac"
although they aren't really tarmacadam. I think this second material is
properly called "asphalt concrete". But what about the first one?

[datakoll]

"There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding
very
hard
over any specific length of road."

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:42:51 -0500, Tom Sherman
> wrote:

>Donald Munro wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very
>>>> hard over any specific length of road.
>>
>> credo.digatti wrote:
>>> You are american engineer yes?
>>
>> American engineer, climatologist, astrophysicist, nuclear physicist,
>> general and koach.
>>
>You forgot political scientist and economist.

Race car driver, big game hunter, master debater

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:51:21 -0600, Werehatrack
> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:31:04 -0500, Tom Sherman
> may have said:
>
>>Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> [...]I've noticed that a couple of
>>> people that ride with us most of the time cannot stand getting off of
>>> asphalt unless it's onto cement.
>>>
>>Huh? Asphalt IS a cement derived from crude oil.
>>
>>Furthermore, there have never been any roads built comprised primarily
>>of either asphalt or Portland cement.
>>
>>Since this thread is cross-posted to RBT, please try to be technically
>>correct.
>
>Ghods forbid that anyone would perchance be confused by the use of
>common vernacular in rbt.

Yeah. BTW - chains stretch with use.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
> On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ben C" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> > >>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> > >>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> > >>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>
> > >> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
> > >> However,
> > >> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
> > >> but
> > >> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> > >> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
> > >> reduced.
>
> > > Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
> > > quite a bit more.
>
> > > Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
> > > 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
>
> > > Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
> > > minutes and 742 Calories.
>
> > However, let's use some reasonable numbers:
>
> > 15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
> > Cyclist.
>
> > That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
> > watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
> > until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
> > slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.
>
> > Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
> > distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
> > much shorter rides.
>
> > >> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
> > >> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
> > >> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
> > >> seems to work well at reducing weight.
>
> > > I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
> > > fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.
>
> > Indeed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
> biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
> different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
> eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
> does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat

As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.

"But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)


if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.

OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.

Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"

So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.

There used to be a really cool dude called Andy Coggan who used to
post here. He could provide all kinds of really good scientific
explanations for us to indulge in.

Andres

[[email protected]]

On Apr 12, 11:36*am, " > wrote:
> On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > "Ben C" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> > > >>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> > > >>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> > > >>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>
> > > >> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
> > > >> However,
> > > >> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
> > > >> but
> > > >> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> > > >> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
> > > >> reduced.
>
> > > > Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
> > > > quite a bit more.
>
> > > > Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
> > > > 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
>
> > > > Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
> > > > minutes and 742 Calories.
>
> > > However, let's use some reasonable numbers:
>
> > > 15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
> > > Cyclist.
>
> > > That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
> > > watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
> > > until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
> > > slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.
>
> > > Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
> > > distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
> > > much shorter rides.
>
> > > >> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
> > > >> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
> > > >> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
> > > >> seems to work well at reducing weight.
>
> > > > I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
> > > > fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.
>
> > > Indeed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
> > biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
> > different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
> > eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
> > does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat
>
> As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
> effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
> will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.
>
> * * *"But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)
>
> if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
> will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
> your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
> that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
> you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
> calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
> during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.
>
> OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
> expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
> it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
> you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
> you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
> napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
> for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
> calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.
>
> Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
> home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
> more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
> sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
> riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
> body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
> calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
> week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
> next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"
>
> So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
> ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
> calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.
>
> There used to be a really cool dude called Andy Coggan who used to
> post here. He could provide all kinds of really good scientific
> explanations for us to indulge in.
>
> Andres- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree with what you say here-

but say 50kms 1 hr takes 1000 calories
fat as fuel provides 200 calories per hour- 200 calories from fat

50 kms 2 hrs takes 800 calories- 400 calories from fat

[Dan O]

On Apr 12, 9:36 am, " > wrote:
> On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > "Ben C" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> > > >>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> > > >>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> > > >>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>
> > > >> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
> > > >> However,
> > > >> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
> > > >> but
> > > >> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> > > >> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
> > > >> reduced.
>
> > > > Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
> > > > quite a bit more.
>
> > > > Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
> > > > 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
>
> > > > Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
> > > > minutes and 742 Calories.
>
> > > However, let's use some reasonable numbers:
>
> > > 15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
> > > Cyclist.
>
> > > That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
> > > watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
> > > until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
> > > slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.
>
> > > Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
> > > distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
> > > much shorter rides.
>
> > > >> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
> > > >> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
> > > >> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
> > > >> seems to work well at reducing weight.
>
> > > > I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
> > > > fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.
>
> > > Indeed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
> > biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
> > different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
> > eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
> > does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat
>
> As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
> effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
> will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.
>
> "But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)
>
> if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
> will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
> your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
> that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
> you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
> calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
> during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.
>
> OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
> expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
> it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
> you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
> you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
> napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
> for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
> calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.
>
> Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
> home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
> more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
> sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
> riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
> body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
> calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
> week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
> next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"
>
> So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
> ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
> calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.
>
> There used to be a really cool dude called Andy Coggan who used to
> post here. He could provide all kinds of really good scientific
> explanations for us to indulge in.
>

Last fall (~six or seven months ago) I weighed ~215+ pounds (I am
around 5' 11"), and was driving my car to work. My work is relatively
sedentary. I was having big hungry man lunches and dinners, and two -
three (or four) beers on most days.

I had started my working life with very active labor at age 14. Over
the decades my occupations have grown gradually but progressively less
active, and my metabolism was apparently changing as well (I am ~46
years old).

First I just stopped eating. That's right - no food - quit cold
turkey (so to speak). I would just starve myself until I couldn't
take it, try to go longer, and then eat a little of something that I
figured my body could use. I was already using the stairs at work
(5th floor), but started going farther up and down - and more often.

I somehow managed to get down to about 185 pounds without dying.
(Actually, I feel a lot better now.)

I live ~25 miles from work, with a splendid mix of short and long up
and down grades, a couple of what you might call actual hills, and
good road shoulders all the way. I had ridden my '86 Trek 400 all the
way once or twice, and did a partway park-and-ride thing quite a bit,
but didn't get serious until this month.

Last month I put $100 down on a really nice workstand and bucket of
tools. The first of April I got paid and went to pay off the tools.
While I was there I also bought the guy's absolutely immaculate '87
Stumpjumper Comp :-) This put me in the financial doghouse, sort of,
what with taxes due and money needed for other things this month.

So I stopped buying gasoline, stopped paying for parking, stopped
buying beer, put fenders on my Trek, and started riding to and from
work - using a bus w/ front-end rack partway sometimes. It's about
two hours each way without the bus. If I do take the bus it's still
about 40 minutes pedaling (each way). Yesterday I was down to around
181 pounds, the rain stopped, and I feel great besides!

I don't measure my heart rate or anything like that. (I do remember
the first time I climbed over the steepest hill and wondered if I
would be able to turn on and dial my cell phone in the event of a
heart attack.) I ride because I love to ride - always have since I
was eight years old. I don't push myself constantly for a workout,
either. I push myself sometimes - either for the workout and/or
because I want to make good time, but a lot of the time I just keep
pedaling and use whatever gearing I need to keep going in reasonable
comfort. However I ride it's got to be better than sitting in the
car. In fact, I think maybe mixing up the degree of work like this
could be optimum activity (particularly at my age :-)

[Eric[_2_]]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:49:07 +0200, Donald Munro wrote:

> Andrew Price wrote:
>> I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
>> came across this formula today:
>>
>> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
> Does it take relativistic effects into account ?

You mean like "all my relatives have had heart attacks by my age?"

[[email protected]]

On Apr 12, 7:57*pm, wrote:
> On Apr 12, 11:36*am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Ben C" > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > > On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> > > > >>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> > > > >>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> > > > >>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>
> > > > >> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
> > > > >> However,
> > > > >> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
> > > > >> but
> > > > >> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> > > > >> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
> > > > >> reduced.
>
> > > > > Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
> > > > > quite a bit more.
>
> > > > > Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
> > > > > 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
>
> > > > > Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
> > > > > minutes and 742 Calories.
>
> > > > However, let's use some reasonable numbers:
>
> > > > 15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
> > > > Cyclist.
>
> > > > That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
> > > > watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
> > > > until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
> > > > slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.
>
> > > > Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
> > > > distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
> > > > much shorter rides.
>
> > > > >> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
> > > > >> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
> > > > >> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
> > > > >> seems to work well at reducing weight.
>
> > > > > I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
> > > > > fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.
>
> > > > Indeed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
> > > biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
> > > different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
> > > eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
> > > does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat
>
> > As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
> > effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
> > will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.
>
> > * * *"But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)
>
> > if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
> > will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
> > your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
> > that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
> > you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
> > calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
> > during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.
>
> > OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
> > expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
> > it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
> > you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
> > you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
> > napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
> > for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
> > calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.
>
> > Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
> > home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
> > more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
> > sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
> > riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
> > body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
> > calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
> > week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
> > next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"
>
> > So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
> > ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
> > calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.
>
> > There used to be a really cool dude called Andy Coggan who used to
> > post here. He could provide all kinds of really good scientific
> > explanations for us to indulge in.
>
> > Andres- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I agree with what you say here-
>
> but say 50kms 1 hr takes 1000 calories
> fat as fuel provides 200 calories per hour- 200 calories from fat
>
> 50 kms 2 hrs takes 800 calories- 400 calories from fat

50km/h for 1 hour is more like 1900 calories. 20% gives 380 calories
from fat.

25km/h for 2 hours is 650 calories, 40% from fat is 260.

Joseph

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

aka Andres Muro wrote:
> [...]
> "But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)
>
butbutbut, gene actually writes "butbutbut".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Ben C? wrote:
> On 2008-04-12, Tom Sherman > wrote:
> [...]
>> When I was a graduate student TA teaching civil engineering materials
>> laboratory classes, I told the students that confusing "cement" and
>> "concrete" was completely unacceptable.
>
> So what are roads made of?
>
> Here we have broadly two kinds of road. The first kind are grey or
> reddish-grey, formed from slabs noticeably joined up every 50 to 100
> metres, are noisy to drive on and produce a lot of spray when it's
> raining. But they apparently last forever. We call those "concrete".
>
From the description I would say continuously reinforced Portland
cement concrete. The slab will crack at fairly small intervals (2-4
meters) but the reinforcement will keep the resulting joints from moving
relative to each other. The larger joints at the 50 to 100-meter spacing
are to allow for thermal expansion without buckling the pavement.

> The other kind are smooth, black, much quieter and have more grip, but
> seem to need more frequent resurfacing. We still call those "tarmac"
> although they aren't really tarmacadam. I think this second material is
> properly called "asphalt concrete". But what about the first one?

Yes, the second pavement is asphaltic concrete, which is primarily
aggregate bound together with a relatively small fraction of petroleum
derived asphalt.

I would be interested in the source of aggregate for the asphaltic
concrete that provides better grip when wet. Where I live the aggregate
sources are primarily carbonate sedimentary rocks, and these provide
much poorer traction when wet than the brush finish Portland cement
concrete pavements do.

The asphaltic concrete pavements also have the disadvantage of having a
visco-elastic binder, so ruts develop in the vehicle tracks over time
that lead to greater water depths on the road.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[[email protected]]

On Apr 12, 1:24*pm, "
> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 7:57*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 11:36*am, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Ben C" > wrote in message
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > > > > On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> > > > > >>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> > > > > >>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> > > > > >>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>
> > > > > >> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
> > > > > >> However,
> > > > > >> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
> > > > > >> but
> > > > > >> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> > > > > >> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
> > > > > >> reduced.
>
> > > > > > Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
> > > > > > quite a bit more.
>
> > > > > > Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
> > > > > > 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
>
> > > > > > Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
> > > > > > minutes and 742 Calories.
>
> > > > > However, let's use some reasonable numbers:
>
> > > > > 15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
> > > > > Cyclist.
>
> > > > > That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
> > > > > watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
> > > > > until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
> > > > > slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.
>
> > > > > Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
> > > > > distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
> > > > > much shorter rides.
>
> > > > > >> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
> > > > > >> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
> > > > > >> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
> > > > > >> seems to work well at reducing weight.
>
> > > > > > I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
> > > > > > fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.
>
> > > > > Indeed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
> > > > biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
> > > > different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
> > > > eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
> > > > does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat
>
> > > As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
> > > effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
> > > will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.
>
> > > * * *"But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)
>
> > > if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
> > > will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
> > > your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
> > > that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
> > > you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
> > > calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
> > > during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.
>
> > > OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
> > > expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
> > > it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
> > > you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
> > > you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
> > > napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
> > > for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
> > > calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.
>
> > > Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
> > > home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
> > > more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
> > > sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
> > > riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
> > > body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
> > > calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
> > > week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
> > > next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"
>
> > > So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
> > > ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
> > > calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.
>
> > > There used to be a really cool dude called Andy Coggan who used to
> > > post here. He could provide all kinds of really good scientific
> > > explanations for us to indulge in.
>
> > > Andres- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I agree with what you say here-
>
> > but say 50kms 1 hr takes 1000 calories
> > fat as fuel provides 200 calories per hour- 200 calories from fat
>
> > 50 kms 2 hrs takes 800 calories- 400 calories from fat
>
> 50km/h for 1 hour is more like 1900 calories. 20% gives 380 calories
> from fat.
>
> 25km/h for 2 hours is 650 calories, 40% from fat is 260.
>
> Joseph- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

the actual caloric requirements were simplified off the top of my head
for the sake of the arguement; the fact is the rate of synthesis of
body fat into blood glucose is a fairly stable total sum eg not a
percentage of a total requirement; 1 hr riding with 200 calories
provided from metabolisim of body fat is less than 2 hours of riding
with an equivalent rate of body fat metabolised to provide the caloric
requirement; the rest comes from liver stores (about 3 hrs worth below
AT effort) beyond that you have to provide on the road or you will
bonk.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 12, 12:28 pm, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> aka Andres Muro wrote:> [...]
> > "But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)
>
> butbutbut, gene actually writes "butbutbut".
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Oh, Oh I misquoted.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 12, 8:06*am, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> > > See the discussion of "alloy" in another thread. *As far back as the
> > late '60s, the Beverly Hillbillies documented the fact that the common
> > vernacular uses "cement" as a synonym for "Portland-cement-based
> > concrete" the same way that "asphalt" (the specific cementing agent in
> > asphaltic concrete) has become the shorthand for the other form. *The
> > battle for precision was lost long ago; the paradigm has shifted.
>
> Should we let a bad 1960's television show determine the language? Is
> there a civilized planet I can emigrate to? ;)
>
> > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

the cee-ment pond ? the beverly hillbillies represented a hilarious
pinacle for broadcast comedy- I'l never forget granny swnging around
on ropes cleaning the kitchen; or how about jethro's "car wash"...
don't call tbh bad comedy; if you need an example of bad comedy maybe
you could refer to a cnn broadcast instead

[Ted van de Weteringe]

wrote:
> There used to be a really cool dude called Andy Coggan who used to
> post here. He could provide all kinds of really good scientific
> explanations for us to indulge in.

Fat burning (in gram per minute) has a maximum at 73% of the maximum
heart rate, according to this publication, reference included:
http://www.usrtriton.nl/img/vetverbr.gif

[Ben C]

On 2008-04-12, Tom Sherman > wrote:
> Ben C? wrote:
[...]
>> The other kind are smooth, black, much quieter and have more grip, but
>> seem to need more frequent resurfacing. We still call those "tarmac"
>> although they aren't really tarmacadam. I think this second material is
>> properly called "asphalt concrete". But what about the first one?
>
> Yes, the second pavement is asphaltic concrete, which is primarily
> aggregate bound together with a relatively small fraction of petroleum
> derived asphalt.
>
> I would be interested in the source of aggregate for the asphaltic
> concrete that provides better grip when wet. Where I live the aggregate
> sources are primarily carbonate sedimentary rocks, and these provide
> much poorer traction when wet than the brush finish Portland cement
> concrete pavements do.

The main difference in the wet is that the newer asphaltic concrete
roads seem to have some kind of a slightly porous surface that lets the
water drain through. Presumably it then runs away to the side
underneath. The result is much less standing water and it's almost like
driving on a dry road. You hardly need treaded tyres with some of these
new roads. Besides grip the visibility is _much_ better without all the
spray.

> The asphaltic concrete pavements also have the disadvantage of having a
> visco-elastic binder, so ruts develop in the vehicle tracks over time
> that lead to greater water depths on the road.

Yes, that's exactly what happens, especially in the lane the heavy
lorries all use.

Thanks for the info.

[Michael Press]

In article >,
Werehatrack > wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:39:26 -0500, Tom Sherman
> > may have said:
>
> >Werehatrack wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:31:04 -0500, Tom Sherman
> >> > may have said:
> >>
> >>> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>> [...]I've noticed that a couple of
> >>>> people that ride with us most of the time cannot stand getting off of
> >>>> asphalt unless it's onto cement.
> >>>>
> >>> Huh? Asphalt IS a cement derived from crude oil.
> >>>
> >>> Furthermore, there have never been any roads built comprised primarily
> >>> of either asphalt or Portland cement.
> >>>
> >>> Since this thread is cross-posted to RBT, please try to be technically
> >>> correct.
> >>
> >> Ghods forbid that anyone would perchance be confused by the use of
> >> common vernacular in rbt.
> >>
> >That was not really the point.
>
> See the discussion of "alloy" in another thread. As far back as the
> late '60s, the Beverly Hillbillies documented the fact that the common
> vernacular uses "cement" as a synonym for "Portland-cement-based
> concrete" the same way that "asphalt" (the specific cementing agent in
> asphaltic concrete) has become the shorthand for the other form. The
> battle for precision was lost long ago; the paradigm has shifted.
> Bristle all you want; the language has no arbiter but its users.

The language has no arbiters. The ones you claim for the role do not
know what arbiter means. The language has, among many
other classes, admirers and yahoos.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Ben C" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> > > >>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> > > >>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> > > >>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
> >
> > > >> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
> > > >> However,
> > > >> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
> > > >> but
> > > >> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> > > >> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
> > > >> reduced.
> >
> > > > Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
> > > > quite a bit more.
> >
> > > > Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
> > > > 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
> >
> > > > Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
> > > > minutes and 742 Calories.
> >
> > > However, let's use some reasonable numbers:
> >
> > > 15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
> > > Cyclist.
> >
> > > That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
> > > watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
> > > until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
> > > slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.
> >
> > > Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
> > > distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
> > > much shorter rides.
> >
> > > >> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
> > > >> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
> > > >> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
> > > >> seems to work well at reducing weight.
> >
> > > > I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
> > > > fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.
> >
> > > Indeed.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
> > biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
> > different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
> > eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
> > does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat
>
> As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
> effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
> will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.
>
> "But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)
>
>
> if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
> will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
> your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
> that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
> you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
> calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
> during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.
>
> OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
> expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
> it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
> you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
> you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
> napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
> for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
> calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.
>
> Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
> home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
> more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
> sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
> riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
> body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
> calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
> week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
> next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"
>
> So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
> ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
> calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.

Yes. If the goal is to burn fat, eliminate the middle man.
Burn fat on the ride. Then come home and eat food to feed
the muscles.

Another variable is that hard efforts burn extra protein.
How does that fit in?

--
Michael Press

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 12, 6:11 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> " > wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
> > > On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Ben C" > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > > On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> > > > >>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> > > > >>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> > > > >>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>
> > > > >> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
> > > > >> However,
> > > > >> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
> > > > >> but
> > > > >> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> > > > >> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
> > > > >> reduced.
>
> > > > > Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
> > > > > quite a bit more.
>
> > > > > Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
> > > > > 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
>
> > > > > Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
> > > > > minutes and 742 Calories.
>
> > > > However, let's use some reasonable numbers:
>
> > > > 15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
> > > > Cyclist.
>
> > > > That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
> > > > watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
> > > > until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
> > > > slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.
>
> > > > Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
> > > > distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
> > > > much shorter rides.
>
> > > > >> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
> > > > >> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
> > > > >> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
> > > > >> seems to work well at reducing weight.
>
> > > > > I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
> > > > > fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.
>
> > > > Indeed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
> > > biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
> > > different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
> > > eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
> > > does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat
>
> > As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
> > effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
> > will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.
>
> > "But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)
>
> > if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
> > will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
> > your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
> > that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
> > you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
> > calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
> > during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.
>
> > OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
> > expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
> > it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
> > you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
> > you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
> > napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
> > for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
> > calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.
>
> > Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
> > home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
> > more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
> > sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
> > riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
> > body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
> > calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
> > week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
> > next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"
>
> > So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
> > ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
> > calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.
>
> Yes. If the goal is to burn fat, eliminate the middle man.
> Burn fat on the ride. Then come home and eat food to feed
> the muscles.
>
> Another variable is that hard efforts burn extra protein.
> How does that fit in?
>
> --
> Michael Press

Whatever you burn doesn't matter. It can be sugar, fat or protein.
What is important is that the body will burn energy. If you burn more
fuel than what you give the body, the body will automatically go to
the the fuel reserve to get the missing energy. That is fat. So, if
you are resting and the body needs to build protein to repair muscles
or to do other stuff, it will use stored fat. If you eat less than
what you put in, the body will burn stored fat and will store less fat
than before. Hence, you'll lose weight.

You can do a killer ride in which you burn fat, sugar and protein.
While resting, the body will burn stored fat to give you energy, to
repair muscles, etc. If you go out that evening and eat a whole super
supreme pizza, a pitcher of Irish beer and a pound of ice-cream, you
will replace all the burned fat and and add some extra.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 12, 7:25*pm, " > wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:11 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > " > wrote:
> > > On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
> > > > On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Ben C" > wrote in message
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > > > > On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> > > > > >>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> > > > > >>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> > > > > >>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>
> > > > > >> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
> > > > > >> However,
> > > > > >> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
> > > > > >> but
> > > > > >> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> > > > > >> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
> > > > > >> reduced.
>
> > > > > > Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
> > > > > > quite a bit more.
>
> > > > > > Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
> > > > > > 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
>
> > > > > > Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
> > > > > > minutes and 742 Calories.
>
> > > > > However, let's use some reasonable numbers:
>
> > > > > 15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
> > > > > Cyclist.
>
> > > > > That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
> > > > > watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
> > > > > until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
> > > > > slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.
>
> > > > > Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
> > > > > distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
> > > > > much shorter rides.
>
> > > > > >> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
> > > > > >> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
> > > > > >> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
> > > > > >> seems to work well at reducing weight.
>
> > > > > > I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
> > > > > > fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.
>
> > > > > Indeed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
> > > > biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
> > > > different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
> > > > eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
> > > > does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat
>
> > > As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
> > > effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
> > > will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.
>
> > > * * *"But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)
>
> > > if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
> > > will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
> > > your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
> > > that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
> > > you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
> > > calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
> > > during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.
>
> > > OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
> > > expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
> > > it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
> > > you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
> > > you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
> > > napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
> > > for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
> > > calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.
>
> > > Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
> > > home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
> > > more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
> > > sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
> > > riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
> > > body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
> > > calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
> > > week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
> > > next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"
>
> > > So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
> > > ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
> > > calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.
>
> > Yes. If the goal is to burn fat, eliminate the middle man.
> > Burn fat on the ride. Then come home and eat food to feed
> > the muscles.
>
> > Another variable is that hard efforts burn extra protein.
> > How does that fit in?
>
> > --
> > Michael Press
>
> Whatever you burn doesn't matter. It can be sugar, fat or protein.
> What is important is that the body will burn energy. If you burn more
> fuel than what you give the body, the body will automatically go to
> the the fuel reserve to get the missing energy. That is fat. So, if
> you are resting and the body needs to build protein to repair muscles
> or to do other stuff, it will use *stored fat. If you eat less than
> what you put in, the body will burn stored fat and will store less fat
> than before. Hence, you'll lose weight.
>
> You can do a killer ride in which you burn fat, sugar and protein.
> While resting, the body will burn stored fat to give you energy, to
> repair muscles, etc. If you go out that evening and eat a whole super
> supreme pizza, a pitcher of Irish beer and a pound of ice-cream, you
> will replace * * all the burned fat and and add some extra.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

you are assuming the body is 100% efficient in doing this- that is
wrong....furthermore, I think you are making a mistake by assuming
that you can burn 2000+ calories in one go and have so much coming
from other than stored body fat; is about the limit a good rider can
do before bonking (actually my rule of thumb is about 3 hrs)- use up
that and you need to add fuel to the fire on the go. my fasting
statement earlier was not just about countering someone elses post;
there is a point there I might as well re-iterate; and that is you can
go without food, use up your glycogen stores and still continue
basically on your body fat- you will notice if you do, that all your
actions are fairly limited you'll be weak and slow- you are basically
limited to the amount of energy your body can produce from
metabolising stored body fat. Because you have used up all your
additional blood sugar you will see you are unable to go any faster-
and in fact risk passing out from your efforts much like a diabetic
whos blood sugar has dropped too low. you won't be able to go over
30kph irregardless of what your hr max is or whatever percentage of
fat metabolisim you want to cite; because going over 30kph means going
over 400 calories per hour and your body cannot metabolise body fat
that fast. It is more like being paid an hourly wage; if you make $20/
hr it does not matter if you spend twice that on your credit card- you
aren't going to make more than that to clear the deficit.

[Marian]

On Apr 12, 9:59 pm, Ben C > wrote:
> On 2008-04-12, Tom Sherman > wrote:
> [...]
>
> > When I was a graduate student TA teaching civil engineering materials
> > laboratory classes, I told the students that confusing "cement" and
> > "concrete" was completely unacceptable.
>
> So what are roads made of?
>
> Here we have broadly two kinds of road. The first kind are grey or
> reddish-grey, formed from slabs noticeably joined up every 50 to 100
> metres, are noisy to drive on and produce a lot of spray when it's
> raining. But they apparently last forever. We call those "concrete".
>
> The other kind are smooth, black, much quieter and have more grip, but
> seem to need more frequent resurfacing. We still call those "tarmac"
> although they aren't really tarmacadam. I think this second material is
> properly called "asphalt concrete". But what about the first one?

The first one is called "shuini" or "powdered water" while the second
one is called "heiyou" or "black oil"

:)

-M

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On Apr 12, 6:11 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> > " > wrote:
> > > On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
> > > > On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > "Ben C" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > ...
> >
> > > > > > On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> > > > > >>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> > > > > >>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> > > > > >>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
> >
> > > > > >> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
> > > > > >> However,
> > > > > >> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
> > > > > >> but
> > > > > >> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> > > > > >> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
> > > > > >> reduced.
> >
> > > > > > Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
> > > > > > quite a bit more.
> >
> > > > > > Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
> > > > > > 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
> >
> > > > > > Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
> > > > > > minutes and 742 Calories.
> >
> > > > > However, let's use some reasonable numbers:
> >
> > > > > 15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
> > > > > Cyclist.
> >
> > > > > That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
> > > > > watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
> > > > > until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
> > > > > slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.
> >
> > > > > Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
> > > > > distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
> > > > > much shorter rides.
> >
> > > > > >> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
> > > > > >> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
> > > > > >> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
> > > > > >> seems to work well at reducing weight.
> >
> > > > > > I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
> > > > > > fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.
> >
> > > > > Indeed.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
> > > > biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
> > > > different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
> > > > eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
> > > > does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat
> >
> > > As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
> > > effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
> > > will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.
> >
> > > "But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)
> >
> > > if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
> > > will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
> > > your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
> > > that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
> > > you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
> > > calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
> > > during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.
> >
> > > OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
> > > expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
> > > it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
> > > you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
> > > you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
> > > napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
> > > for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
> > > calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.
> >
> > > Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
> > > home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
> > > more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
> > > sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
> > > riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
> > > body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
> > > calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
> > > week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
> > > next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"
> >
> > > So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
> > > ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
> > > calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.
> >
> > Yes. If the goal is to burn fat, eliminate the middle man.
> > Burn fat on the ride. Then come home and eat food to feed
> > the muscles.
> >
> > Another variable is that hard efforts burn extra protein.
> > How does that fit in?
>
> Whatever you burn doesn't matter. It can be sugar, fat or protein.
> What is important is that the body will burn energy. If you burn more
> fuel than what you give the body, the body will automatically go to
> the the fuel reserve to get the missing energy. That is fat. So, if
> you are resting and the body needs to build protein to repair muscles
> or to do other stuff, it will use stored fat.

We cannot build protein from fat. Therefore burning protein in
lieu of fat is fat that is not taken out of adipose tissue.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
Dan O > wrote:

> On Apr 12, 9:36 am, " > wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> > > > "Ben C" > wrote in message
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > > > > On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
> > > > >>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
> > > > >>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
> > > > >>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
> >
> > > > >> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
> > > > >> However,
> > > > >> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
> > > > >> but
> > > > >> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
> > > > >> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
> > > > >> reduced.
> >
> > > > > Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
> > > > > quite a bit more.
> >
> > > > > Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
> > > > > 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
> >
> > > > > Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
> > > > > minutes and 742 Calories.
> >
> > > > However, let's use some reasonable numbers:
> >
> > > > 15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
> > > > Cyclist.
> >
> > > > That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
> > > > watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
> > > > until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
> > > > slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.
> >
> > > > Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
> > > > distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
> > > > much shorter rides.
> >
> > > > >> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
> > > > >> going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
> > > > >> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
> > > > >> seems to work well at reducing weight.
> >
> > > > > I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
> > > > > fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.
> >
> > > > Indeed.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
> > > biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
> > > different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
> > > eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
> > > does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat
> >
> > As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
> > effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
> > will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.
> >
> > "But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)
> >
> > if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
> > will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
> > your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
> > that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
> > you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
> > calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
> > during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.
> >
> > OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
> > expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
> > it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
> > you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
> > you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
> > napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
> > for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
> > calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.
> >
> > Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
> > home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
> > more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
> > sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
> > riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
> > body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
> > calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
> > week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
> > next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"
> >
> > So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
> > ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
> > calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.
> >
> > There used to be a really cool dude called Andy Coggan who used to
> > post here. He could provide all kinds of really good scientific
> > explanations for us to indulge in.
> >
>
> Last fall (~six or seven months ago) I weighed ~215+ pounds (I am
> around 5' 11"), and was driving my car to work. My work is relatively
> sedentary. I was having big hungry man lunches and dinners, and two -
> three (or four) beers on most days.
>
> I had started my working life with very active labor at age 14. Over
> the decades my occupations have grown gradually but progressively less
> active, and my metabolism was apparently changing as well (I am ~46
> years old).
>
> First I just stopped eating. That's right - no food - quit cold
> turkey (so to speak). I would just starve myself until I couldn't
> take it, try to go longer, and then eat a little of something that I
> figured my body could use. I was already using the stairs at work
> (5th floor), but started going farther up and down - and more often.
>
> I somehow managed to get down to about 185 pounds without dying.
> (Actually, I feel a lot better now.)
>
> I live ~25 miles from work, with a splendid mix of short and long up
> and down grades, a couple of what you might call actual hills, and
> good road shoulders all the way. I had ridden my '86 Trek 400 all the
> way once or twice, and did a partway park-and-ride thing quite a bit,
> but didn't get serious until this month.
>
> Last month I put $100 down on a really nice workstand and bucket of
> tools. The first of April I got paid and went to pay off the tools.
> While I was there I also bought the guy's absolutely immaculate '87
> Stumpjumper Comp :-) This put me in the financial doghouse, sort of,
> what with taxes due and money needed for other things this month.
>
> So I stopped buying gasoline, stopped paying for parking, stopped
> buying beer, put fenders on my Trek, and started riding to and from
> work - using a bus w/ front-end rack partway sometimes. It's about
> two hours each way without the bus. If I do take the bus it's still
> about 40 minutes pedaling (each way). Yesterday I was down to around
> 181 pounds, the rain stopped, and I feel great besides!
>
> I don't measure my heart rate or anything like that. (I do remember
> the first time I climbed over the steepest hill and wondered if I
> would be able to turn on and dial my cell phone in the event of a
> heart attack.) I ride because I love to ride - always have since I
> was eight years old. I don't push myself constantly for a workout,
> either. I push myself sometimes - either for the workout and/or
> because I want to make good time, but a lot of the time I just keep
> pedaling and use whatever gearing I need to keep going in reasonable
> comfort. However I ride it's got to be better than sitting in the
> car. In fact, I think maybe mixing up the degree of work like this
> could be optimum activity (particularly at my age :-)

Neat. Congratulations.

You should keep something in mind. Generally, starvation is a
poor way to keep weight off. Better to not feel deprived.
Nature always has the trump cards. Our bodies put on fat to
get us through famines. Self-induced famine is all the same
to our body. Our body's response to famine is to put on
_even_more_fat_ to get through the next famine. Please keep
your body happy with regular treats. You will be better for it.

--
Michael Press

[Phil Holman]

"Eric" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:49:07 +0200, Donald Munro wrote:
>
>> Andrew Price wrote:
>>> I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until
>>> I
>>> came across this formula today:
>>>
>>> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>>
>> Does it take relativistic effects into account ?
>
> You mean like "all my relatives have had heart attacks by my age?"

No, it's only if your heart suffers from Lorentz contractions.

Phil H

[Phil Holman]

"Michael Press" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> " > wrote:
>
>> On Apr 12, 6:11 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>> > In article
>> > >,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > " > wrote:
>> > > On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
>> > > > On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > "Ben C" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > > > ...
>> >
>> > > > > > On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo> wrote:
>> > > > > > wrote in message
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > > >>> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
>> > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > [...]
>> > > > > >>> On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then
>> > > > > >>> is not part
>> > > > > >>> of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is
>> > > > > >>> having need for
>> > > > > >>> horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force
>> > > > > >>> is not linear
>> > > > > >>> with speed. You are american engineer yes?
>> >
>> > > > > >> As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal
>> > > > > >> formula.
>> > > > > >> However,
>> > > > > >> the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air
>> > > > > >> resistance indeed
>> > > > > >> but
>> > > > > >> in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a
>> > > > > >> large amount and
>> > > > > >> going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the
>> > > > > >> time is
>> > > > > >> reduced.
>> >
>> > > > > > Total energy required to complete a given journey at a
>> > > > > > higher speed is
>> > > > > > quite a bit more.
>> >
>> > > > > > Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at
>> > > > > > a leisurely
>> > > > > > 100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.
>> >
>> > > > > > Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it
>> > > > > > takes 57
>> > > > > > minutes and 742 Calories.
>> >
>> > > > > However, let's use some reasonable numbers:
>> >
>> > > > > 15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at
>> > > > > Analytical
>> > > > > Cyclist.
>> >
>> > > > > That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower
>> > > > > rider and 496
>> > > > > watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That
>> > > > > all sounds OK
>> > > > > until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat
>> > > > > whereas the
>> > > > > slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.
>> >
>> > > > > Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight
>> > > > > unless the
>> > > > > distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can
>> > > > > lose weight on
>> > > > > much shorter rides.
>> >
>> > > > > >> Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't
>> > > > > >> lose weight
>> > > > > >> going fast unless they're covering large distances and
>> > > > > >> eating poorly.
>> > > > > >> And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate
>> > > > > >> distances
>> > > > > >> seems to work well at reducing weight.
>> >
>> > > > > > I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat
>> > > > > > if you go too
>> > > > > > fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.
>> >
>> > > > > Indeed.- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>> >
>> > > > all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
>> > > > biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements
>> > > > for
>> > > > different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one
>> > > > basis
>> > > > eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster
>> > > > that
>> > > > does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat
>> >
>> > > As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a
>> > > harder
>> > > effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower
>> > > you
>> > > will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn
>> > > glycogen.
>> >
>> > > "But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)
>> >
>> > > if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your
>> > > body
>> > > will have to produce energy out of something. It will be
>> > > transforming
>> > > your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's
>> > > say
>> > > that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride
>> > > and
>> > > you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
>> > > calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you
>> > > eat
>> > > during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.
>> >
>> > > OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total
>> > > caloric
>> > > expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories.
>> > > While
>> > > it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
>> > > you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day,
>> > > while
>> > > you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group
>> > > or
>> > > napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make
>> > > up
>> > > for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The
>> > > more
>> > > calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.
>> >
>> > > Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and
>> > > go
>> > > home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up
>> > > eating
>> > > more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
>> > > sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other
>> > > hand,
>> > > riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that
>> > > the
>> > > body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This
>> > > increases
>> > > calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap
>> > > for a
>> > > week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up
>> > > the
>> > > next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning
>> > > ride"
>> >
>> > > So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you
>> > > burn and
>> > > ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same
>> > > amount of
>> > > calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.
>> >
>> > Yes. If the goal is to burn fat, eliminate the middle man.
>> > Burn fat on the ride. Then come home and eat food to feed
>> > the muscles.
>> >
>> > Another variable is that hard efforts burn extra protein.
>> > How does that fit in?
>>
>> Whatever you burn doesn't matter. It can be sugar, fat or protein.
>> What is important is that the body will burn energy. If you burn more
>> fuel than what you give the body, the body will automatically go to
>> the the fuel reserve to get the missing energy. That is fat. So, if
>> you are resting and the body needs to build protein to repair muscles
>> or to do other stuff, it will use stored fat.
>
> We cannot build protein from fat. Therefore burning protein in
> lieu of fat is fat that is not taken out of adipose tissue.
>

It doesn't get an simpler than this.....dU = Q - W.

Phil H

[Ben C]

On 2008-04-13, > wrote:
[...]
> there is a point there I might as well re-iterate; and that is you can
> go without food, use up your glycogen stores and still continue
> basically on your body fat- you will notice if you do, that all your
> actions are fairly limited you'll be weak and slow- you are basically
> limited to the amount of energy your body can produce from
> metabolising stored body fat.

I read somewhere on one of those nutrition blog type of things that "fat
burns in the flame of carbohydrate". If you've bonked (no carbohydrate)
then the fat becomes less accessible to you, so you start digesting your
muscles, organs, brain stem, etc. instead even though there's still
plenty of fat.

[Lou Holtman]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-04-13, > wrote:
> [...]
>> there is a point there I might as well re-iterate; and that is you can
>> go without food, use up your glycogen stores and still continue
>> basically on your body fat- you will notice if you do, that all your
>> actions are fairly limited you'll be weak and slow- you are basically
>> limited to the amount of energy your body can produce from
>> metabolising stored body fat.
>
> I read somewhere on one of those nutrition blog type of things that "fat
> burns in the flame of carbohydrate". If you've bonked (no carbohydrate)
> then the fat becomes less accessible to you, so you start digesting your
> muscles, organs, brain stem, etc. instead even though there's still
> plenty of fat.


If you bonk it's over. You stop pour some fast carbs in your system and
wait for 20 minutes. After that you look for the fastest way home.
If you don't and try to go on, there is not much brain to burn...

Lou

[Woland99]

On Apr 11, 7:43 pm, Coal Porter > wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Woland99
>
> > wrote:
> >On Apr 10, 9:12 am, datakoll > wrote:
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl...
>
> >Border line disinformation. For me HRM is a bit like metronome -
> >it is not to see how fast I can get but to keep steady manageable
> >tempo. If I understand the idea correctly - effective burning of
> >carbs and any burning of fat needs steady oxygen supply - so it
> >is better to keep yourself in mostly aerobic zone.
>
> You appear to be stating that a steady spirited effort will produce
> the most benefit to the individual. The actuality is that mixed
> training, intense short sessions, long slow ones, and ones in-between
> produce the most benefit by increasing the individual's vo2max.
> Training programs not just miles makes all the difference. It's not
> obvious but it's true nonentheless.
>
> Runner's sites do a better job(IMHO) of explaining this concept than
> cycling sites. I like this one in particular(if you're interested):http://www.powerrunning.com/index.htm

Thanks for the link.
Actually I never said that a steady "steady spirited effort will
produce the most benefit to the individual". I was only referring
to the obsessive focus that that NYT piece had on Max HR where
in fact you may sometimes need it to pace yourself. I do understand
concept of interval training but in my very specific case I am not
there yet. I started riding after years of almost complete lack of
endurance type of exercise (just occasional kayaking) and with quite
a few extra pounds. So weight loss is one of my main goals. I also
try to boost the mileage - when I started in mid December I could
barely cover 2 miles. Yesterday I rode 30 miles with few big hills
and came home barely tired - could have gone another 10-15 miles.
So I think I did some progress building base but I am not sure
I am ready for intervals yet. I do try to vary rides - do shorter
ones (15 miles or so) with a lot of hills trying to do aggressive
climbing. And longer ones (30 miles) with more steady pace -
my goal is to get to 50 mile range fairly soon. I have strong legs
so on flats I tend to ride too fast for my current heart efficiency
and having HRM is a good way be able to increase mileage.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 13, 4:49*am, Ben C > wrote:
> On 2008-04-13, > wrote:
> [...]
>
> > there is a point there I might as well re-iterate; and that is you can
> > go without food, use up your glycogen stores and still continue
> > basically on your body fat- you will notice if you do, that all your
> > actions are fairly limited you'll be weak and slow- you are basically
> > limited to the amount of energy your body can produce from
> > metabolising stored body fat.
>
> I read somewhere on one of those nutrition blog type of things that "fat
> burns in the flame of carbohydrate". If you've bonked (no carbohydrate)
> then the fat becomes less accessible to you, so you start digesting your
> muscles, organs, brain stem, etc. instead even though there's still
> plenty of fat.

that may well be true; but you realize it is all a very gradual an
slow process, not a light switch effect

[[email protected]]

On Apr 13, 6:42*am, Lou Holtman > wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
> > On 2008-04-13, > wrote:
> > [...]
> >> there is a point there I might as well re-iterate; and that is you can
> >> go without food, use up your glycogen stores and still continue
> >> basically on your body fat- you will notice if you do, that all your
> >> actions are fairly limited you'll be weak and slow- you are basically
> >> limited to the amount of energy your body can produce from
> >> metabolising stored body fat.
>
> > I read somewhere on one of those nutrition blog type of things that "fat
> > burns in the flame of carbohydrate". If you've bonked (no carbohydrate)
> > then the fat becomes less accessible to you, so you start digesting your
> > muscles, organs, brain stem, etc. instead even though there's still
> > plenty of fat.
>
> If you bonk it's over. You stop pour some fast carbs in your system and
> wait for 20 minutes. After that you look for the fastest way home.
> If you don't and try to go on, there is not much brain to burn...
>
> Lou

no, you can continue, in fact refueling enroute following a bonk is
probabally the best way to overcome it's more lasting detrimental
effects

[[email protected]]

On Apr 13, 8:35*am, Woland99 > wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:43 pm, Coal Porter > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Woland99
>
> > > wrote:
> > >On Apr 10, 9:12 am, datakoll > wrote:
> > >>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl....
>
> > >Border line disinformation. For me HRM is a bit like metronome -
> > >it is not to see how fast I can get but to keep steady manageable
> > >tempo. If I understand the idea correctly - effective burning of
> > >carbs and any burning of fat needs steady oxygen supply - so it
> > >is better to keep yourself in mostly aerobic zone.
>
> > You appear to be stating that a steady spirited effort will produce
> > the most benefit to the individual. The actuality is that mixed
> > training, intense short sessions, long slow ones, and ones in-between
> > produce the most benefit by increasing the individual's vo2max.
> > Training programs not just miles makes all the difference. It's not
> > obvious but it's true nonentheless.
>
> > Runner's sites do a better job(IMHO) of explaining this concept than
> > cycling sites. I like this one in particular(if you're interested):http://www.powerrunning.com/index.htm
>
> Thanks for the link.
> Actually I never said that a steady "steady spirited effort will
> produce the most benefit to the individual". I was only referring
> to the obsessive focus that that NYT piece had on Max HR where
> in fact you may sometimes need it to pace yourself. I do understand
> concept of interval training but in my very specific case I am not
> there yet. I started riding after years of almost complete lack of
> endurance type of exercise (just occasional kayaking) and with quite
> a few extra pounds. So weight loss is one of my main goals. I also
> try to boost the mileage - when I started in mid December I could
> barely cover 2 miles. Yesterday I rode 30 miles with few big hills
> and came home barely tired - could have gone another 10-15 miles.
> So I think I did some progress building base but I am not sure
> I am ready for intervals yet. I do try to vary rides - do shorter
> ones (15 miles or so) with a lot of hills trying to do aggressive
> climbing. And longer ones (30 miles) with more steady pace -
> my goal is to get to 50 mile range fairly soon. I have strong legs
> so on flats I tend to ride too fast for my current heart efficiency
> and having HRM is a good way be able to increase mileage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

it sounds like you are on the right track; the most important thing is
that as long as you are enjoying yourself on the bike then you are on
the road to fitness

[Peter Grange]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:54:39 -0400, Coal Porter
> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:40:14 +0100, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
>>>on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
>>>population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
>>>to find out what max HR is is to induce it.
>>>
>>How do you induce max heart rate, without finding out it won't go
>>_that_ fast and having the rate abruptly return to zero?
>
>Like the poster says, you induce it. When you reach your maximum, the
>heart doesn't explode, it just stops beating faster. It's not unlike
>the converse: as you go into deep relaxation and then sleep, your
>heart doesn't shut down for a spell.

OK, for a young person who has an established level of fitness, maybe
that's a half reasonable thing to do. I can't see that it's anything
approaching a good idea for just anyone to set out to find out how
fast his/her heart will go.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 13, 3:35*pm, Woland99 > wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:43 pm, Coal Porter > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Woland99
>
> > > wrote:
> > >On Apr 10, 9:12 am, datakoll > wrote:
> > >>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl....
>
> > >Border line disinformation. For me HRM is a bit like metronome -
> > >it is not to see how fast I can get but to keep steady manageable
> > >tempo. If I understand the idea correctly - effective burning of
> > >carbs and any burning of fat needs steady oxygen supply - so it
> > >is better to keep yourself in mostly aerobic zone.
>
> > You appear to be stating that a steady spirited effort will produce
> > the most benefit to the individual. The actuality is that mixed
> > training, intense short sessions, long slow ones, and ones in-between
> > produce the most benefit by increasing the individual's vo2max.
> > Training programs not just miles makes all the difference. It's not
> > obvious but it's true nonentheless.
>
> > Runner's sites do a better job(IMHO) of explaining this concept than
> > cycling sites. I like this one in particular(if you're interested):http://www.powerrunning.com/index.htm
>
> Thanks for the link.
> Actually I never said that a steady "steady spirited effort will
> produce the most benefit to the individual". I was only referring
> to the obsessive focus that that NYT piece had on Max HR where
> in fact you may sometimes need it to pace yourself. I do understand
> concept of interval training but in my very specific case I am not
> there yet. I started riding after years of almost complete lack of
> endurance type of exercise (just occasional kayaking) and with quite
> a few extra pounds. So weight loss is one of my main goals. I also
> try to boost the mileage - when I started in mid December I could
> barely cover 2 miles. Yesterday I rode 30 miles with few big hills
> and came home barely tired - could have gone another 10-15 miles.
> So I think I did some progress building base but I am not sure
> I am ready for intervals yet. I do try to vary rides - do shorter
> ones (15 miles or so) with a lot of hills trying to do aggressive
> climbing. And longer ones (30 miles) with more steady pace -
> my goal is to get to 50 mile range fairly soon. I have strong legs
> so on flats I tend to ride too fast for my current heart efficiency
> and having HRM is a good way be able to increase mileage.

Sounds like you are making good progress.

No reason to add intervals any time soon, if ever. Your plan of adding
hilly rides with agressive riding will server that purpose more than
well enough, but even that should only be done if you want to for fun.
Building your base like you are doing is giving you th emost bang for
the buck now.

Joseph

[Dan O]

On Apr 12, 5:05 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
> Werehatrack > wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:39:26 -0500, Tom Sherman
> > > may have said:
>
> > >Werehatrack wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:31:04 -0500, Tom Sherman
> > >> > may have said:
>
> > >>> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>>> [...]I've noticed that a couple of
> > >>>> people that ride with us most of the time cannot stand getting off of
> > >>>> asphalt unless it's onto cement.
>
> > >>> Huh? Asphalt IS a cement derived from crude oil.
>
> > >>> Furthermore, there have never been any roads built comprised primarily
> > >>> of either asphalt or Portland cement.
>
> > >>> Since this thread is cross-posted to RBT, please try to be technically
> > >>> correct.
>
> > >> Ghods forbid that anyone would perchance be confused by the use of
> > >> common vernacular in rbt.
>

>
> > ... the Beverly Hillbillies documented the fact that the common
> > vernacular uses "cement" as a synonym for "Portland-cement-based
> > concrete" the same way that "asphalt" (the specific cementing agent in
> > asphaltic concrete) has become the shorthand for the other form. The
> > battle for precision was lost long ago; the paradigm has shifted.
> > Bristle all you want; the language has no arbiter but its users.
>
> The language has no arbiters. The ones you claim for the role do not
> know what arbiter means. The language has, among many
> other classes, admirers and yahoos.
>

I admire Jed Clampett.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 13, 6:17*pm, Peter Grange > wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:54:39 -0400, Coal Porter
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:40:14 +0100, Peter Grange
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
> " > wrote:
>
> >>>Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
> >>>on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> >>>population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
> >>>to find out what max HR is is to induce it.
>
> >>How do you induce max heart rate, without finding out it won't go
> >>_that_ fast and having the rate abruptly return to zero?
>
> >Like the poster says, you induce it. When you reach your maximum, the
> >heart doesn't explode, it just stops beating faster. It's not unlike
> >the converse: as you go into deep relaxation and then sleep, your
> >heart doesn't shut down for a spell.
>
> OK, for a young person who has an established level of fitness, maybe
> that's a half reasonable thing to do. I can't see that it's anything
> approaching a good idea for just anyone to set out to find out how
> fast his/her heart will go.

Anyone in poor enough shape that they are at risk of croaking from
trying, wouldn't be able to get anywhere near their max HR before
having to quit from being exhausted.

People (even fat out of shape ones) are much more resilient that they
are given credit for.

Anyone who is in good enough shape to even ride a bike at all
shouldn't be afraid they are going to blow a gasket by trying too
hard.

Joseph

[Ben C]

On 2008-04-13, > wrote:
> On Apr 13, 4:49*am, Ben C > wrote:
>> On 2008-04-13, > wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> > there is a point there I might as well re-iterate; and that is you can
>> > go without food, use up your glycogen stores and still continue
>> > basically on your body fat- you will notice if you do, that all your
>> > actions are fairly limited you'll be weak and slow- you are basically
>> > limited to the amount of energy your body can produce from
>> > metabolising stored body fat.
>>
>> I read somewhere on one of those nutrition blog type of things that "fat
>> burns in the flame of carbohydrate". If you've bonked (no carbohydrate)
>> then the fat becomes less accessible to you, so you start digesting your
>> muscles, organs, brain stem, etc. instead even though there's still
>> plenty of fat.
>
> that may well be true; but you realize it is all a very gradual an
> slow process, not a light switch effect

Actually bonking really does feel almost like a light switch effect
sometimes. One minute you're going along fine, the next you can hardly
turn the pedals.

Not recommended to get into that situation of course.

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:42:51 -0500, Tom Sherman
> > wrote:
>
>> Donald Munro wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very
>>>>> hard over any specific length of road.
>>> credo.digatti wrote:
>>>> You are american engineer yes?
>>> American engineer, climatologist, astrophysicist, nuclear physicist,
>>> general and koach.
>>>
>> You forgot political scientist and economist.
>
> Race car driver, big game hunter, master debater
>

Escaped asylum inmate...

[Tom Kunich]

"Fred Fredburger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Escaped asylum inmate...

Somehow coming from you that's a compliment.

[datakoll]

On Apr 13, 9:26*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
> > Escaped asylum inmate...
>
> Somehow coming from you that's a compliment.

SHEEEEEEEET: $5 and and SASE, I'll send a complete list plus 5 hot
penny stocks.

[datakoll]

say what is this about anyway?

"There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding
very
hard
over any specific length of road."

who dais that? Clark Kent, Jim Thorp... ?

[Fred Fredburger]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Escaped asylum inmate...
>
> Somehow coming from you that's a compliment.
>

Yep, it's WAY better than what I usually say about you.

[datakoll]

the BIONIC CYCLIST ??

General Grant ?

Mao ?

Willie Shoemaker ?

Heidi Fleiss ?

[Peter Grange]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:28:05 -0400, Coal Porter
> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:17:06 +0100, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:54:39 -0400, Coal Porter
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:40:14 +0100, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
>>>>>on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
>>>>>population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
>>>>>to find out what max HR is is to induce it.
>>>>>
>>>>How do you induce max heart rate, without finding out it won't go
>>>>_that_ fast and having the rate abruptly return to zero?
>>>
>>>Like the poster says, you induce it. When you reach your maximum, the
>>>heart doesn't explode, it just stops beating faster. It's not unlike
>>>the converse: as you go into deep relaxation and then sleep, your
>>>heart doesn't shut down for a spell.
>>
>>OK, for a young person who has an established level of fitness, maybe
>>that's a half reasonable thing to do. I can't see that it's anything
>>approaching a good idea for just anyone to set out to find out how
>>fast his/her heart will go.
>
>Sorry, I made a mistake in my initial response: at a certain age, I
>think it's 40, it's recommended that the aspiring trainee consult with
>a physician before beginning a fitness program. I should have added
>that qualifier but some may say it's implied.
>
>In another sense, there's semantics going on here. There's clearly a
>common sense approach to this whole exercise(/GROAN). But there's also
>a self limiting factor: a beginning fitness buff can't do today what
>they'll be able to do tomorrow, next week, next month, and in a
>decade. So get your butt out there, and do all you can, it ain't gonna
>be much, but you'll get better.
>
>This is my tenth cycling season. There are times when I'm exhausted
>but I'll still go out for a ride. It might just be maintenace, but
>it'll have more climbing than anthing that I might have done to curry
>a high heart rate in the first 3, or 4 years that I've cycled.
>
>Cycling is not like running, you don't need a six month ramp up to
>prepare your body bor the rigors of the sport. And you can never get
>the half workout back. Better to give your best effort and have no
>regrets.

I wouldn't mind betting there are a number of teenagers out there
where suddenly stressing the heart would not be a very good idea, but
I'm not a doctor.

Surely exercising to near your max HR is the same on a bike as
running?

My butt is firmly out there. I'm now 62 & have been cycling to a
greater or lesser degree since I was 14, including Jon O' Groats to
Lands end, and tours over the Pyrenees.

Pete

[Woland99]

On Apr 13, 7:25 pm, Coal Porter > wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:35:41 -0700 (PDT), Woland99
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Apr 11, 7:43 pm, Coal Porter > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Woland99
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On Apr 10, 9:12 am, datakoll > wrote:
> >> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl...
>
> >> >Border line disinformation. For me HRM is a bit like metronome -
> >> >it is not to see how fast I can get but to keep steady manageable
> >> >tempo. If I understand the idea correctly - effective burning of
> >> >carbs and any burning of fat needs steady oxygen supply - so it
> >> >is better to keep yourself in mostly aerobic zone.
>
> >> You appear to be stating that a steady spirited effort will produce
> >> the most benefit to the individual. The actuality is that mixed
> >> training, intense short sessions, long slow ones, and ones in-between
> >> produce the most benefit by increasing the individual's vo2max.
> >> Training programs not just miles makes all the difference. It's not
> >> obvious but it's true nonentheless.
>
> >> Runner's sites do a better job(IMHO) of explaining this concept than
> >> cycling sites. I like this one in particular(if you're interested):http://www.powerrunning.com/index.htm
>
> >Thanks for the link.
> >Actually I never said that a steady "steady spirited effort will
> >produce the most benefit to the individual". I was only referring
> >to the obsessive focus that that NYT piece had on Max HR where
>
> I went back and reread the article. I read Kolata all the time and I
> usually have a beef or two, but not with this article. Fairly
> innocuous IMO and nothing particularly adamantine other than she
> admits to what amounts to a fetish for comparing max rates. If the
> article gets people to dig a little deeper, then it's done it's job.
> I'm not an afficionando, but I thought this was a strong statement,
> maybe because this is what I use the hrm for, I log data:
>
> 'Exercise physiologists tend to favor it. "You need to keep track of
> exercise intensity" in order to meet performance goals or to improve,
> Dr. Tanaka said'
>
> >in fact you may sometimes need it to pace yourself. I do understand
> >concept of interval training but in my very specific case I am not
> >there yet. I started riding after years of almost complete lack of
> >endurance type of exercise (just occasional kayaking) and with quite
> >a few extra pounds. So weight loss is one of my main goals. I also
>
> I smoked for 25 years before I began biking 10 seasons ago. There's no
> reason to be self limiting. Your body will take care of that for you.
>
> >try to boost the mileage - when I started in mid December I could
> >barely cover 2 miles. Yesterday I rode 30 miles with few big hills
> >and came home barely tired - could have gone another 10-15 miles.
>
> I think we agree on more than you think. I totally understand what you
> just wrote. For me, I'm often humbled when on the road by just
> recalling how far the journey has gone.
>
> >So I think I did some progress building base but I am not sure
> >I am ready for intervals yet. I do try to vary rides - do shorter
> >ones (15 miles or so) with a lot of hills trying to do aggressive
> >climbing. And longer ones (30 miles) with more steady pace -
> >my goal is to get to 50 mile range fairly soon. I have strong legs
> >so on flats I tend to ride too fast for my current heart efficiency
> >and having HRM is a good way be able to increase mileage.
>
> I hear what you're saying, try this: One day a week, do a route,
> however long, with the longest, steepest hill you can find... the one
> that drops you into you're lowest climbing gear and leaves you there
> wondering whether you can make it to the top without getting off the
> bike. The one where if the chain skips, you're not gonna make it. That
> one. In my area, it's called Cottage, about a mile and a half with a
> number of 13-15% segments. Just doing that hill regularly, allows me
> to ride with the better riders. Maybe this year I'll be able to do
> hill repeats, I don't know yet, weather is crummy 8-) I haven't done
> it with the hrm on yet, but I know full well what it's going to say.
>
> Good luck with it!

Coal, Joseph and raam - thank you for the encouragement - you may
rest assured - I bought "Bike for Life" for a reason ;-)
I use my HRM (Edge 305) to log data too - and SportTracks to
analysze it - I was just looking at same 12.5 mile "hills route"
thru the neighbourhood that I did month ago and yesterday.
My average HR (as % of MaxHR) went down 2%.
Average speed went up 13% and average power 9%.
The biggest hill I have available around here is probably in 12%
range but is nor rideable - almost no shoulder. A safer alternative
and a part of nice 6 mile ride to park on the lake is about 700ft
over about 2.7 miles so just 5% average. But it has almost mile long
8% average section. I need to start just riding to the lake around
sunrise - short ride before breakfast. Despite my weight I really
enjoy climbing.

[wizardB]

Dan Gregory wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
>> on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
>> population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
>> to find out what max HR is is to induce it.
>
> Thinking of formulae "off the top of my head" my MHR is the age of my
> father when he died + the age of my mother when she died + 5
> :-))
Does that mean my max will keep climbing ones 84 and the other 85 hmmmmm...

[Dan Gregory]

wizardB wrote:
> Dan Gregory wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
>>> on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
>>> population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
>>> to find out what max HR is is to induce it.
>>
>> Thinking of formulae "off the top of my head" my MHR is the age of my
>> father when he died + the age of my mother when she died + 5
>> :-))
> Does that mean my max will keep climbing ones 84 and the other 85 hmmmmm...
93+79 in my case
:-))

[Jerry[_3_]]

wizardB wrote:
> Dan Gregory wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
>>> on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
>>> population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
>>> to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

I did that once and it happened to turn out *exactly* as what the formula
predicted. It was uncanny.

But still, I have since been unable to raise my HR max through training.

[Peter Grange]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:32:21 -0400, Coal Porter
> wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:10:59 +0100, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:28:05 -0400, Coal Porter
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:17:06 +0100, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:54:39 -0400, Coal Porter
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:40:14 +0100, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
>>>>>>>on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
>>>>>>>population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
>>>>>>>to find out what max HR is is to induce it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>How do you induce max heart rate, without finding out it won't go
>>>>>>_that_ fast and having the rate abruptly return to zero?
>>>>>
>>>>>Like the poster says, you induce it. When you reach your maximum, the
>>>>>heart doesn't explode, it just stops beating faster. It's not unlike
>>>>>the converse: as you go into deep relaxation and then sleep, your
>>>>>heart doesn't shut down for a spell.
>>>>
>>>>OK, for a young person who has an established level of fitness, maybe
>>>>that's a half reasonable thing to do. I can't see that it's anything
>>>>approaching a good idea for just anyone to set out to find out how
>>>>fast his/her heart will go.
>>>
>>>Sorry, I made a mistake in my initial response: at a certain age, I
>>>think it's 40, it's recommended that the aspiring trainee consult with
>>>a physician before beginning a fitness program. I should have added
>>>that qualifier but some may say it's implied.
>>>
>>>In another sense, there's semantics going on here. There's clearly a
>>>common sense approach to this whole exercise(/GROAN). But there's also
>>>a self limiting factor: a beginning fitness buff can't do today what
>>>they'll be able to do tomorrow, next week, next month, and in a
>>>decade. So get your butt out there, and do all you can, it ain't gonna
>>>be much, but you'll get better.
>>>
>>>This is my tenth cycling season. There are times when I'm exhausted
>>>but I'll still go out for a ride. It might just be maintenace, but
>>>it'll have more climbing than anthing that I might have done to curry
>>>a high heart rate in the first 3, or 4 years that I've cycled.
>>>
>>>Cycling is not like running, you don't need a six month ramp up to
>>>prepare your body bor the rigors of the sport. And you can never get
>>>the half workout back. Better to give your best effort and have no
>>>regrets.
>>
>>I wouldn't mind betting there are a number of teenagers out there
>>where suddenly stressing the heart would not be a very good idea, but
>>I'm not a doctor.
>
>In order to join a HS sports team, you need a release from an MD. You
>need a physical. I suspect the rationale is potential liability and
>nothing more. Frankly though, I think it's prudent and noone here has
>suggested anything else.
Sorry, don't know what HS means, but I agree it certainly seems
prudent to seek medical advice before embarking on any major physical
exercise regime. This thread is posted to rec.bicycles.racing and
rec.bicycles.tech, where I read it. If it was only on rbr I would have
not taken such an exception to the "see how fast your heart can go"
theme of some of the posts. Plus I wouldn't have seen them anyway :-).
>
>On the other hand, to respond directly to your supposition that some
>teenagers are put at risk and therefore ought not to engage in
>physical activity, I would take the opposing view. Any teenager who
>could suffer life threatening repurcushions based on normal athletic
>activity, should best find out at that time, when the body is most
>capable of being repaired and a life's course is determined. I would
>go so far as to say, we should produce far less fans and many more
>participants. Participation is the goal not winning.

i was not suggesting a youngster should not take up recreational
cycling, I was suggesting he/she should not stress his/her heart by
trying to establish a max heart rate.
I would not for one minute try to discourage anyone from cycling, It's
given me much pleasure over the years, and is an excellent exercise
for those wishing to lose some weight and see some of the countryside
we still have left in this country, which is why a lot of people take
it up in the first place. What I would discourage a new cyclist from
doing is to try to establish a max heart rate by seeing how fast
his/her heart will go. The admittedly crude measures (220-age or
whatever) are IMHO quite adequate for setting up the calorie counter
on an HRM for a recreational cyclist, especiallly a rookie
recreational cyclist. My hrm will even take age as an input.
>
>>
>>Surely exercising to near your max HR is the same on a bike as
>>running?
>
>Sorry, you clearly have never looked at any data. I didn't understand
>the difference either until I got an HRM. While running you support
>your weight, when bikeing you're most often sitting on your butt and
>it makes all the difference.
>
>Running is a far more strenous workout than cycling. No one has to
>talk about weight loss in a running forum, it's a byproduct of the
>activity. Cyclist's are always wondering about it. People in this
>thread are talking about it. Put an HRM on, go for a hour run. The
>next day go for a ride. The questions answer themselves: one workout
>is more strenous, the other can be done when your body can't handle
>the harder exertion, a huge plus!
Perhaps I misunderstood your previous post. I was merely commenting
that to get your heart to its max it doesn't make a great deal of
difference how you get it there.
>
>>My butt is firmly out there. I'm now 62 & have been cycling to a
>>greater or lesser degree since I was 14, including Jon O' Groats to
>>Lands end, and tours over the Pyrenees.
>
>You have great experiences, now if you can only pass on your personal
>willingness to those that don't know that a little effort early on can
>result in a lifetime of benefit. I started riding at 42 and I don't
>want anyone that talks to me, to wait that long.
I advocate cycling whenever I can. I'm pleased to see that it has
enjoyed a resurgence in the last few years in the UK. I would like to
think it was due to people wanting exercise, but alas in London anyway
I believe it's more due to the tax on vehicles entering the city,
bombs on the underground (subway) and the equivalent of $8 a gallon we
pay for petrol now. People still get the exercise though I guess.

I repeat, my only gripe was with the "exercise to see how fast your
heart will go" theme. I don't exercise until I puke, as someone
advocated in this thread. I may puke, but that's probably more due to
the beers I had at the lunchtime stop. Hey this thread is getting
long.

pete
>
>jay.
>
>>
>>Pete

[Camilo]

someone wrote (sorry, hard to keep the attributions straight):

> > > and you'llsee your max drop as you spend more time on the road- such as during
> > > the spring.

I've never heard such a thing. Where did you hear that max HR drops
with training?

I read that eddy had a very low max, something like
> > > 150bpm...the point is that the max hr is a very personal thing, and
> > > there is no formula or point in comparison to any other individual
> > > than yourself;

absolutely

hr monitoring and bpm numbers are useful intelectual
> > > exercises to help quantify the pain and serve as a distraction during
> > > the activity, as an excuse to ease off or provide a mandate to
> > > continue; but the activity concludes with results that essentually
> > > speak for themselves and that being the object of the activity, the hr
> > > values are irrelevant

actually, I think HR based training has been shown to be an effective
training technique, not a "distraction", "excuse", "irrelevant" , etc.

someone else:

> but I was thinking a bit more last night after I posted and I wonder
> if the max hr is more of a pain threshold; the point where one says
> "enough !" where someone else chooses to continue, I always feel I can
> do more but don't because the agony becomes greater-

I think you're absolutely right. I've been told by good coaches that
the agony point is a good estimate of 90-95% max HR.

[Camilo]

On Apr 10, 10:22 pm, "

> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
> on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
> to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

Joseph has spoken the truth.