Why does my small ring feel so big in the cold?

[Mark Scardiglia]

I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
density of the air...

;-)

[Tim McNamara]

(Mark Scardiglia) writes:

> I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
> how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
> below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
> density of the air...

I was wondering this today. When it's cold out, my average speed
drops and my subjective effort increases. I think that it may have to
do with the fact that cold weather tends to occur with short daylight
hours and less riding, which in turn leads to less fitness and slower
speeds and more subjective effort. In other words, I'm out of shape
when it's cold out.

Despite that, I was lucky enough to be able to take advantage of
unseasonably warm and clear November weather here in Minnesota to get
in a 180 mile week. Usually by now we have had at least a 1" snow
fall; instead it's been in the mid-40s F.

[Tim McNamara]

(Mark Scardiglia) writes:

> I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
> how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
> below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
> density of the air...

I was wondering this today. When it's cold out, my average speed
drops and my subjective effort increases. I think that it may have to
do with the fact that cold weather tends to occur with short daylight
hours and less riding, which in turn leads to less fitness and slower
speeds and more subjective effort. In other words, I'm out of shape
when it's cold out.

Despite that, I was lucky enough to be able to take advantage of
unseasonably warm and clear November weather here in Minnesota to get
in a 180 mile week. Usually by now we have had at least a 1" snow
fall; instead it's been in the mid-40s F.

[Peter]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> (Mark Scardiglia) writes:
>
>
>>I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
>>how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
>>below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
>>density of the air...
>
>
> I was wondering this today. When it's cold out, my average speed
> drops and my subjective effort increases. I think that it may have to
> do with the fact that cold weather tends to occur with short daylight
> hours and less riding, which in turn leads to less fitness and slower
> speeds and more subjective effort. In other words, I'm out of shape
> when it's cold out.

If that were the main effect I'd expect to still feel slow on days in
the winter that are exceptionally warm. But I've found that a bike ride
feels particularly effortless on such days. Conversely an early cold
snap has an immediate effect on perceived effort - long before any loss
of fitness could occur. I'd attribute part of the effect to the need
for more clothing and partly to physiological factors; e.g. your body
needs to expend more energy on keeping warm and I'd expect some
efficiency losses in the lungs as blood vessels contract in response to
cold air.
>
> Despite that, I was lucky enough to be able to take advantage of
> unseasonably warm and clear November weather here in Minnesota to get
> in a 180 mile week. Usually by now we have had at least a 1" snow
> fall; instead it's been in the mid-40s F.

That's better than I managed this week in the much warmer but wetter
SF bay area. Born in Minn., grew up in ND, glad to have escaped.

[Peter]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> (Mark Scardiglia) writes:
>
>
>>I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
>>how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
>>below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
>>density of the air...
>
>
> I was wondering this today. When it's cold out, my average speed
> drops and my subjective effort increases. I think that it may have to
> do with the fact that cold weather tends to occur with short daylight
> hours and less riding, which in turn leads to less fitness and slower
> speeds and more subjective effort. In other words, I'm out of shape
> when it's cold out.

If that were the main effect I'd expect to still feel slow on days in
the winter that are exceptionally warm. But I've found that a bike ride
feels particularly effortless on such days. Conversely an early cold
snap has an immediate effect on perceived effort - long before any loss
of fitness could occur. I'd attribute part of the effect to the need
for more clothing and partly to physiological factors; e.g. your body
needs to expend more energy on keeping warm and I'd expect some
efficiency losses in the lungs as blood vessels contract in response to
cold air.
>
> Despite that, I was lucky enough to be able to take advantage of
> unseasonably warm and clear November weather here in Minnesota to get
> in a 180 mile week. Usually by now we have had at least a 1" snow
> fall; instead it's been in the mid-40s F.

That's better than I managed this week in the much warmer but wetter
SF bay area. Born in Minn., grew up in ND, glad to have escaped.

[Edward Dike, III]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
| Tim McNamara wrote:
| > (Mark Scardiglia) writes:
| >
| >
| >>I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
| >>how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
| >>below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
| >>density of the air...
| >
| >
| > I was wondering this today. When it's cold out, my average speed
| > drops and my subjective effort increases. I think that it may have to
| > do with the fact that cold weather tends to occur with short daylight
| > hours and less riding, which in turn leads to less fitness and slower
| > speeds and more subjective effort. In other words, I'm out of shape
| > when it's cold out.
|
| If that were the main effect I'd expect to still feel slow on days in
| the winter that are exceptionally warm. But I've found that a bike ride
| feels particularly effortless on such days. Conversely an early cold
| snap has an immediate effect on perceived effort - long before any loss
| of fitness could occur. I'd attribute part of the effect to the need
| for more clothing and partly to physiological factors; e.g. your body
| needs to expend more energy on keeping warm and I'd expect some
| efficiency losses in the lungs as blood vessels contract in response to
| cold air.
| >
| > Despite that, I was lucky enough to be able to take advantage of
| > unseasonably warm and clear November weather here in Minnesota to get
| > in a 180 mile week. Usually by now we have had at least a 1" snow
| > fall; instead it's been in the mid-40s F.
|
| That's better than I managed this week in the much warmer but wetter
| SF bay area. Born in Minn., grew up in ND, glad to have escaped.


I have attributed the 'more fatigue/ energy input req'd' cold weather
phenomena to two things, primarily:

It takes a fair bit of energy to warm the air one breathes.
and
Cold weather clothing is a bit heavier, and far more constricting than
typical summer wear.

Whether or not they have a discernable effect, all the bike's lubricants
will be more viscous.

Working outside in the winter has a similar effect; increasing fatigue,
appetite/ energy consumption, and rest requirements.

ED3
St.Paul

[Edward Dike, III]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
| Tim McNamara wrote:
| > (Mark Scardiglia) writes:
| >
| >
| >>I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
| >>how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
| >>below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
| >>density of the air...
| >
| >
| > I was wondering this today. When it's cold out, my average speed
| > drops and my subjective effort increases. I think that it may have to
| > do with the fact that cold weather tends to occur with short daylight
| > hours and less riding, which in turn leads to less fitness and slower
| > speeds and more subjective effort. In other words, I'm out of shape
| > when it's cold out.
|
| If that were the main effect I'd expect to still feel slow on days in
| the winter that are exceptionally warm. But I've found that a bike ride
| feels particularly effortless on such days. Conversely an early cold
| snap has an immediate effect on perceived effort - long before any loss
| of fitness could occur. I'd attribute part of the effect to the need
| for more clothing and partly to physiological factors; e.g. your body
| needs to expend more energy on keeping warm and I'd expect some
| efficiency losses in the lungs as blood vessels contract in response to
| cold air.
| >
| > Despite that, I was lucky enough to be able to take advantage of
| > unseasonably warm and clear November weather here in Minnesota to get
| > in a 180 mile week. Usually by now we have had at least a 1" snow
| > fall; instead it's been in the mid-40s F.
|
| That's better than I managed this week in the much warmer but wetter
| SF bay area. Born in Minn., grew up in ND, glad to have escaped.


I have attributed the 'more fatigue/ energy input req'd' cold weather
phenomena to two things, primarily:

It takes a fair bit of energy to warm the air one breathes.
and
Cold weather clothing is a bit heavier, and far more constricting than
typical summer wear.

Whether or not they have a discernable effect, all the bike's lubricants
will be more viscous.

Working outside in the winter has a similar effect; increasing fatigue,
appetite/ energy consumption, and rest requirements.

ED3
St.Paul

[Raptor]

Cold air is also drier than warm air: better hydration needed.

But... How sure are we that it's harder? I see a lot of "seems like" and
"feels like" in this thread. Forgive me if I haven't read everything
carefully enough, but is anyone numerically confident that riding in the
cold is slower?

If so, I suspect the biggest difference is aerodynamic. Cold weather
clothing is bulkier with more folds & fibers to catch wind.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

[Raptor]

Cold air is also drier than warm air: better hydration needed.

But... How sure are we that it's harder? I see a lot of "seems like" and
"feels like" in this thread. Forgive me if I haven't read everything
carefully enough, but is anyone numerically confident that riding in the
cold is slower?

If so, I suspect the biggest difference is aerodynamic. Cold weather
clothing is bulkier with more folds & fibers to catch wind.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

[SlowRider]

(Mark Scardiglia) wrote in message >...
> I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
> how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
> below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
> density of the air...

I am so glad to hear other people talking about this! I've noticed
the same thing over the years and I figured either (a) I was really
out of shape (depressing) or (b) I was just being a wimp that day. It
never occurred to me that the body might require more energy to warm
the cold air.

Off-hand, I'd guess the benefits of cold air are: dense air = more O2
per breath; cold air may mean tires won't deform as much (?) --
anything else?? Doesn't sound like much.

The drawbacks are: denser air = higher drag for any given KPH; more
clothing = constricted breathing, higher drag coefficient and heavier
load; cold lubricants = more effort; cold air = possibly more energy
spent keeping body warm.

Neither one sounds like much -- everything is probably on the order of
0-2% of total power/resistance, but the drawbacks do appear to
outweigh the benefits in terms of performance.

In any case, it makes me feel better to think the cold weather is just
a tougher environment for riding...

JR

[SlowRider]

(Mark Scardiglia) wrote in message >...
> I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
> how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
> below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
> density of the air...

I am so glad to hear other people talking about this! I've noticed
the same thing over the years and I figured either (a) I was really
out of shape (depressing) or (b) I was just being a wimp that day. It
never occurred to me that the body might require more energy to warm
the cold air.

Off-hand, I'd guess the benefits of cold air are: dense air = more O2
per breath; cold air may mean tires won't deform as much (?) --
anything else?? Doesn't sound like much.

The drawbacks are: denser air = higher drag for any given KPH; more
clothing = constricted breathing, higher drag coefficient and heavier
load; cold lubricants = more effort; cold air = possibly more energy
spent keeping body warm.

Neither one sounds like much -- everything is probably on the order of
0-2% of total power/resistance, but the drawbacks do appear to
outweigh the benefits in terms of performance.

In any case, it makes me feel better to think the cold weather is just
a tougher environment for riding...

JR

[Booker C. Bense]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article >,
Mark Scardiglia > wrote:
>I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
>how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
>below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
>density of the air...
>

_ This may sound conter-intiutive, but you are likely
overdressed. You go slower because your muscles are
overheated. From my exeperience, you can actually go
faster at 40 degrees, since you don't need to waste
energy cooling off. However, this requires that you
either take off one or two layers after warming up,
or dressing lightly enough so that you're pretty
chilly until you warm up. This varies greatly from
person to person, but in general people tend to
overdress in cold weather. The trick to cold weather
is to remove layers before you get sweaty.

_ Booker C. Bense


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQZk/6mTWTAjn5N/lAQH/KwQAhpjOW4Jd+ECyz3NCganX2EdgLvxbPPRJ
HS8vjQ+qSTVZ8UL1jqFRaVBVxLGUd+uzqf7gD2zTkG/ELktwtoN+Ys9ZU5U89yT+
p1lGQHFc4WVVGqFs4hek/aGkf+kG/+jFJ+k8K2phjZ8JVa1W+zP2paWuHYi7da1N
3c6PKmD3lWQ=
=tJNo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Booker C. Bense]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article >,
Mark Scardiglia > wrote:
>I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
>how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
>below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
>density of the air...
>

_ This may sound conter-intiutive, but you are likely
overdressed. You go slower because your muscles are
overheated. From my exeperience, you can actually go
faster at 40 degrees, since you don't need to waste
energy cooling off. However, this requires that you
either take off one or two layers after warming up,
or dressing lightly enough so that you're pretty
chilly until you warm up. This varies greatly from
person to person, but in general people tend to
overdress in cold weather. The trick to cold weather
is to remove layers before you get sweaty.

_ Booker C. Bense


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQZk/6mTWTAjn5N/lAQH/KwQAhpjOW4Jd+ECyz3NCganX2EdgLvxbPPRJ
HS8vjQ+qSTVZ8UL1jqFRaVBVxLGUd+uzqf7gD2zTkG/ELktwtoN+Ys9ZU5U89yT+
p1lGQHFc4WVVGqFs4hek/aGkf+kG/+jFJ+k8K2phjZ8JVa1W+zP2paWuHYi7da1N
3c6PKmD3lWQ=
=tJNo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Edward Dike, III]

"Booker C. Bense"
. stanford.edu> wrote in
message ...
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| In article >,
| Mark Scardiglia > wrote:
| >I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
| >how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
| >below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
| >density of the air...
| >
|
| _ This may sound conter-intiutive, but you are likely
| overdressed. You go slower because your muscles are
| overheated. From my exeperience, you can actually go
| faster at 40 degrees, since you don't need to waste
| energy cooling off. However, this requires that you
| either take off one or two layers after warming up,
| or dressing lightly enough so that you're pretty
| chilly until you warm up. This varies greatly from
| person to person, but in general people tend to
| overdress in cold weather. The trick to cold weather
| is to remove layers before you get sweaty.
|
| _ Booker C. Bense
|

It's really unnecessary to undress, or over/ under dress.
If you wear tops with zippers, and headbands, the ability to expose more or
less flesh in the critical areas of the neck, throat, chest, and head will
make all the difference. Exposing the wrists to the cold will draw off much
heat, as they are another area of the body where there is a great amount of
blood flowing close to the skin's surface.
At riding speeds, a few square inches of flesh exposed in these areas will
readily zap heat off the body. It does pay to anticipate:
Bundle/zip up on the long, low energy output/high wind chill downhills.
Unzip as you approach long. slow (low wind chill/ high energy output)uphills
to adequately vent waste heat.

ED3

[Edward Dike, III]

"Booker C. Bense"
. stanford.edu> wrote in
message ...
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| In article >,
| Mark Scardiglia > wrote:
| >I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
| >how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
| >below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
| >density of the air...
| >
|
| _ This may sound conter-intiutive, but you are likely
| overdressed. You go slower because your muscles are
| overheated. From my exeperience, you can actually go
| faster at 40 degrees, since you don't need to waste
| energy cooling off. However, this requires that you
| either take off one or two layers after warming up,
| or dressing lightly enough so that you're pretty
| chilly until you warm up. This varies greatly from
| person to person, but in general people tend to
| overdress in cold weather. The trick to cold weather
| is to remove layers before you get sweaty.
|
| _ Booker C. Bense
|

It's really unnecessary to undress, or over/ under dress.
If you wear tops with zippers, and headbands, the ability to expose more or
less flesh in the critical areas of the neck, throat, chest, and head will
make all the difference. Exposing the wrists to the cold will draw off much
heat, as they are another area of the body where there is a great amount of
blood flowing close to the skin's surface.
At riding speeds, a few square inches of flesh exposed in these areas will
readily zap heat off the body. It does pay to anticipate:
Bundle/zip up on the long, low energy output/high wind chill downhills.
Unzip as you approach long. slow (low wind chill/ high energy output)uphills
to adequately vent waste heat.

ED3

[Pih Stof]

"Mark Scardiglia" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
> how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
> below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
> density of the air...

It takes much more effort for me to get warmed up, but in the end I feel
stronger in the cold even as low as the 20's. In the cool to hot temps I
have problems staying hydrated. I'm really happy that temps are coming
down.

Dave

[Pih Stof]

"Mark Scardiglia" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
> how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
> below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
> density of the air...

It takes much more effort for me to get warmed up, but in the end I feel
stronger in the cold even as low as the 20's. In the cool to hot temps I
have problems staying hydrated. I'm really happy that temps are coming
down.

Dave

[Tim McNamara]

Booker C. Bense
. stanford.edu>
writes:

> In article >,
> Mark Scardiglia > wrote:
>
>>I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
>>how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
>>below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
>>density of the air...
>
> _ This may sound conter-intiutive, but you are likely
> overdressed. You go slower because your muscles are overheated. From
> my exeperience, you can actually go faster at 40 degrees, since you
> don't need to waste energy cooling off.

Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste energy
cooling off." FWIW my personal experience is that I ride fastest and
easiest when the temperature is between 80 and 90F. I'd probably be a
happy guy living in New Mexico or Arizona, as I like it hot. Here in
Minnesota there are only about six weeks of good warm weather a year,
and 6 1/2 months of generally OK weather- and four months of generally
annoying weather, at least from the cycling perspective. Sadly
they've not been good months for cross-country skiing or snowshoeing
for most of the past 10 years

> However, this requires that you either take off one or two layers
> after warming up, or dressing lightly enough so that you're pretty
> chilly until you warm up. This varies greatly from person to person,
> but in general people tend to overdress in cold weather. The trick
> to cold weather is to remove layers before you get sweaty.

I'd agree with the practice you describe, as a way to prevent initial
overheating and then getting cold when the insulation provided by your
clothing is compromise by moisture, but not the underlying reason you
propose.

[Tim McNamara]

Booker C. Bense
. stanford.edu>
writes:

> In article >,
> Mark Scardiglia > wrote:
>
>>I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
>>how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
>>below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
>>density of the air...
>
> _ This may sound conter-intiutive, but you are likely
> overdressed. You go slower because your muscles are overheated. From
> my exeperience, you can actually go faster at 40 degrees, since you
> don't need to waste energy cooling off.

Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste energy
cooling off." FWIW my personal experience is that I ride fastest and
easiest when the temperature is between 80 and 90F. I'd probably be a
happy guy living in New Mexico or Arizona, as I like it hot. Here in
Minnesota there are only about six weeks of good warm weather a year,
and 6 1/2 months of generally OK weather- and four months of generally
annoying weather, at least from the cycling perspective. Sadly
they've not been good months for cross-country skiing or snowshoeing
for most of the past 10 years

> However, this requires that you either take off one or two layers
> after warming up, or dressing lightly enough so that you're pretty
> chilly until you warm up. This varies greatly from person to person,
> but in general people tend to overdress in cold weather. The trick
> to cold weather is to remove layers before you get sweaty.

I'd agree with the practice you describe, as a way to prevent initial
overheating and then getting cold when the insulation provided by your
clothing is compromise by moisture, but not the underlying reason you
propose.

[Terry Morse]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste energy
> cooling off."

Yes, it takes energy to cool the body, since the heart has to work
harder. Based on what I've read:

When it's hot, more blood is directed to the surface of the body,
leaving less for the leg muscles. Because of this, heart rate
increases about 1 beat for every degree above 75F.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Terry Morse]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste energy
> cooling off."

Yes, it takes energy to cool the body, since the heart has to work
harder. Based on what I've read:

When it's hot, more blood is directed to the surface of the body,
leaving less for the leg muscles. Because of this, heart rate
increases about 1 beat for every degree above 75F.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Terry Morse]

Raptor wrote:

> Forgive me if I haven't read everything
> carefully enough, but is anyone numerically confident that riding in the
> cold is slower?

My hill time trials are slower in the cold, so yes, I have numbers
to show the slow-down effect. I can't explain why, however.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Terry Morse]

Raptor wrote:

> Forgive me if I haven't read everything
> carefully enough, but is anyone numerically confident that riding in the
> cold is slower?

My hill time trials are slower in the cold, so yes, I have numbers
to show the slow-down effect. I can't explain why, however.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Raptor]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Terry Morse > writes:
>>Okay, I'll buy the argument that cooling requires little increase in
>>caloric energy. But I'll respond to that with a "Who cares?".
>>Increase in temperature substantially limits the ability to produce
>>power to the pedals, and that's the important fact. Time trial
>>results on very hot days are reduced.
>
>
> Interesting. My average speeds are 1-2 mph higher on hot days versus
> cooler days within a given week in the summer. I feel loose, relaxed
> and efficient above 80 F, not too bad above 65 F, and from thereon
> down I feel tighter and less efficient when pedaling. Granted this is
> all subjective, but as the temps drop my average speed drops as
> well. YMMV.

Living in a four-season climate (presumably I'm not the only one), I
acclimatize myself twice a year and enjoy exercising outdoors in all
weather, eventually. More so in Summer for obvious reasons. I would
expect my performance to be more of a function of my current state of
acclimatization than mere temperature.

If you are patient and determined, I believe you can acclimatize
yourself to perform well from roughly -40F (clothed) to roughly 110F
(scantily clothed but sunscreened).

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

[Raptor]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Terry Morse > writes:
>>Okay, I'll buy the argument that cooling requires little increase in
>>caloric energy. But I'll respond to that with a "Who cares?".
>>Increase in temperature substantially limits the ability to produce
>>power to the pedals, and that's the important fact. Time trial
>>results on very hot days are reduced.
>
>
> Interesting. My average speeds are 1-2 mph higher on hot days versus
> cooler days within a given week in the summer. I feel loose, relaxed
> and efficient above 80 F, not too bad above 65 F, and from thereon
> down I feel tighter and less efficient when pedaling. Granted this is
> all subjective, but as the temps drop my average speed drops as
> well. YMMV.

Living in a four-season climate (presumably I'm not the only one), I
acclimatize myself twice a year and enjoy exercising outdoors in all
weather, eventually. More so in Summer for obvious reasons. I would
expect my performance to be more of a function of my current state of
acclimatization than mere temperature.

If you are patient and determined, I believe you can acclimatize
yourself to perform well from roughly -40F (clothed) to roughly 110F
(scantily clothed but sunscreened).

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

[Tim McNamara]

Terry Morse > writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste energy
>> cooling off."
>
> Yes, it takes energy to cool the body, since the heart has to work
> harder. Based on what I've read:
>
> When it's hot, more blood is directed to the surface of the body,
> leaving less for the leg muscles. Because of this, heart rate
> increases about 1 beat for every degree above 75F.

Close enough to no energy expenditure as to be lost in the noise.

[Tim McNamara]

Terry Morse > writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste energy
>> cooling off."
>
> Yes, it takes energy to cool the body, since the heart has to work
> harder. Based on what I've read:
>
> When it's hot, more blood is directed to the surface of the body,
> leaving less for the leg muscles. Because of this, heart rate
> increases about 1 beat for every degree above 75F.

Close enough to no energy expenditure as to be lost in the noise.

[Booker C. Bense]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article >,
Tim McNamara > wrote:
>Booker C. Bense
. stanford.edu>
>writes:
>
>> In article >,
>> Mark Scardiglia > wrote:
>>
>>>I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
>>>how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
>>>below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
>>>density of the air...
>>
>> _ This may sound conter-intiutive, but you are likely
>> overdressed. You go slower because your muscles are overheated. From
>> my exeperience, you can actually go faster at 40 degrees, since you
>> don't need to waste energy cooling off.
>
>Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste energy
>cooling off."

_ Poor choice of words on my part. While cooling off may not be
active, sweating certainly is. If you're sweating you're wasting
energy and water.


> FWIW my personal experience is that I ride fastest and
>easiest when the temperature is between 80 and 90F.

_ YICK, I grind to a halt at about 80 and when it's 90 I
just suffer home. I can't really go fast at all until it's
60 or below.

>
>> However, this requires that you either take off one or two layers
>> after warming up, or dressing lightly enough so that you're pretty
>> chilly until you warm up. This varies greatly from person to person,
>> but in general people tend to overdress in cold weather. The trick
>> to cold weather is to remove layers before you get sweaty.
>
>I'd agree with the practice you describe, as a way to prevent initial
>overheating and then getting cold when the insulation provided by your
>clothing is compromise by moisture, but not the underlying reason you
>propose.

_ Based on my experience in XC skiing races, I think there is more to it
than that. I'm faster when I don't sweat. If you're sweating your
muscles need to be cooled faster than the environmental
conditions alone can cool them.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQZprr2TWTAjn5N/lAQGk+QP+LHWEQlIdtTCOGxBbejtQJatiHlnBA48u
DpnGYCcfsNgglGCWQX7a0npe+PcmLD3zz1N/nAEJP31u7A9ej1SNjlCXZf/OXF2P
Y5dKlmGbJ0DoFptI3cuG4NYR7F2HocM0ActuVMfQy/OSEaedUXVFgh/PSxL2wjTB
S9r9TGkHsFI=
=nLBh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Booker C. Bense]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article >,
Tim McNamara > wrote:
>Booker C. Bense
. stanford.edu>
>writes:
>
>> In article >,
>> Mark Scardiglia > wrote:
>>
>>>I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
>>>how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
>>>below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
>>>density of the air...
>>
>> _ This may sound conter-intiutive, but you are likely
>> overdressed. You go slower because your muscles are overheated. From
>> my exeperience, you can actually go faster at 40 degrees, since you
>> don't need to waste energy cooling off.
>
>Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste energy
>cooling off."

_ Poor choice of words on my part. While cooling off may not be
active, sweating certainly is. If you're sweating you're wasting
energy and water.


> FWIW my personal experience is that I ride fastest and
>easiest when the temperature is between 80 and 90F.

_ YICK, I grind to a halt at about 80 and when it's 90 I
just suffer home. I can't really go fast at all until it's
60 or below.

>
>> However, this requires that you either take off one or two layers
>> after warming up, or dressing lightly enough so that you're pretty
>> chilly until you warm up. This varies greatly from person to person,
>> but in general people tend to overdress in cold weather. The trick
>> to cold weather is to remove layers before you get sweaty.
>
>I'd agree with the practice you describe, as a way to prevent initial
>overheating and then getting cold when the insulation provided by your
>clothing is compromise by moisture, but not the underlying reason you
>propose.

_ Based on my experience in XC skiing races, I think there is more to it
than that. I'm faster when I don't sweat. If you're sweating your
muscles need to be cooled faster than the environmental
conditions alone can cool them.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQZprr2TWTAjn5N/lAQGk+QP+LHWEQlIdtTCOGxBbejtQJatiHlnBA48u
DpnGYCcfsNgglGCWQX7a0npe+PcmLD3zz1N/nAEJP31u7A9ej1SNjlCXZf/OXF2P
Y5dKlmGbJ0DoFptI3cuG4NYR7F2HocM0ActuVMfQy/OSEaedUXVFgh/PSxL2wjTB
S9r9TGkHsFI=
=nLBh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Terry Morse]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> Terry Morse > writes:
>
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> >> Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste energy
> >> cooling off."
> >
> > Yes, it takes energy to cool the body, since the heart has to work
> > harder. Based on what I've read:
> >
> > When it's hot, more blood is directed to the surface of the body,
> > leaving less for the leg muscles. Because of this, heart rate
> > increases about 1 beat for every degree above 75F.
>
> Close enough to no energy expenditure as to be lost in the noise.

Okay, I'll buy the argument that cooling requires little increase in
caloric energy. But I'll respond to that with a "Who cares?".
Increase in temperature substantially limits the ability to produce
power to the pedals, and that's the important fact. Time trial
results on very hot days are reduced.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Terry Morse]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> Terry Morse > writes:
>
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> >> Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste energy
> >> cooling off."
> >
> > Yes, it takes energy to cool the body, since the heart has to work
> > harder. Based on what I've read:
> >
> > When it's hot, more blood is directed to the surface of the body,
> > leaving less for the leg muscles. Because of this, heart rate
> > increases about 1 beat for every degree above 75F.
>
> Close enough to no energy expenditure as to be lost in the noise.

Okay, I'll buy the argument that cooling requires little increase in
caloric energy. But I'll respond to that with a "Who cares?".
Increase in temperature substantially limits the ability to produce
power to the pedals, and that's the important fact. Time trial
results on very hot days are reduced.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Tim McNamara]

Terry Morse > writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> Terry Morse > writes:
>>
>> > Tim McNamara wrote:
>> >
>> >> Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste
>> >> energy cooling off."
>> >
>> > Yes, it takes energy to cool the body, since the heart has to
>> > work harder. Based on what I've read:
>> >
>> > When it's hot, more blood is directed to the surface of the body,
>> > leaving less for the leg muscles. Because of this, heart rate
>> > increases about 1 beat for every degree above 75F.
>>
>> Close enough to no energy expenditure as to be lost in the noise.
>
> Okay, I'll buy the argument that cooling requires little increase in
> caloric energy. But I'll respond to that with a "Who cares?".
> Increase in temperature substantially limits the ability to produce
> power to the pedals, and that's the important fact. Time trial
> results on very hot days are reduced.

Interesting. My average speeds are 1-2 mph higher on hot days versus
cooler days within a given week in the summer. I feel loose, relaxed
and efficient above 80 F, not too bad above 65 F, and from thereon
down I feel tighter and less efficient when pedaling. Granted this is
all subjective, but as the temps drop my average speed drops as
well. YMMV.

[Tim McNamara]

Terry Morse > writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> Terry Morse > writes:
>>
>> > Tim McNamara wrote:
>> >
>> >> Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste
>> >> energy cooling off."
>> >
>> > Yes, it takes energy to cool the body, since the heart has to
>> > work harder. Based on what I've read:
>> >
>> > When it's hot, more blood is directed to the surface of the body,
>> > leaving less for the leg muscles. Because of this, heart rate
>> > increases about 1 beat for every degree above 75F.
>>
>> Close enough to no energy expenditure as to be lost in the noise.
>
> Okay, I'll buy the argument that cooling requires little increase in
> caloric energy. But I'll respond to that with a "Who cares?".
> Increase in temperature substantially limits the ability to produce
> power to the pedals, and that's the important fact. Time trial
> results on very hot days are reduced.

Interesting. My average speeds are 1-2 mph higher on hot days versus
cooler days within a given week in the summer. I feel loose, relaxed
and efficient above 80 F, not too bad above 65 F, and from thereon
down I feel tighter and less efficient when pedaling. Granted this is
all subjective, but as the temps drop my average speed drops as
well. YMMV.

[Tim McNamara]

Booker C. Bense
. stanford.edu>
writes:

> In article >,
> Tim McNamara > wrote:
>>Booker C. Bense
. stanford.edu>
>>writes:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Mark Scardiglia > wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze
>>>>me how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it
>>>>gets below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do
>>>>with the density of the air...
>>>
>>> _ This may sound conter-intiutive, but you are likely
>>> overdressed. You go slower because your muscles are
>>> overheated. From my exeperience, you can actually go faster at 40
>>> degrees, since you don't need to waste energy cooling off.
>>
>>Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste energy
>>cooling off."
>
> _ Poor choice of words on my part. While cooling off may not be
> active, sweating certainly is. If you're sweating you're wasting
> energy and water.

Sweating doesn't really seem to take a lot of calories. Heck, you're
sweating all the time but it's less noticeable when the temperature is
lower and the air is drier. Dehydration is one of the leading causes
of cold-weather deaths. You are losing water and electrolytes in your
sweat, though.

>> FWIW my personal experience is that I ride fastest and easiest when
>>the temperature is between 80 and 90F.
>
> _ YICK, I grind to a halt at about 80 and when it's 90 I just suffer
> home. I can't really go fast at all until it's 60 or below.

I feel most alive when the mercury climbs above 80 F. I can't wait to
get home from work and go out for as long as bike ride as daylight
allows. Above 100 F, it's a bit hot and I ride more conservatively.
I've never ridden in temps over 103 F or so, as those happen rarely
here in Minnesota.

I will say, though, that one of my worst days on the bike was a hot
one in the Alps in 2002, climbing the Col de la Croix de Fer from
Rochetaillee, then the Telegraphe and the Galibier. It was at least
95 F in the Maurienne valley and in the 70s on the cols. There was
some shade on the Croix de Fer near the bottom and on the Telegraphe,
but none to speak of on the Galibier. I drank 18 full water bottles
and peed once in 10 hours. An absolute sticker of a day. I suppose
long climbs in the heat, with little or no wind to cool one off as a
result, took its toll.

Around here, a long climb takes 6 minutes compared to 10 times as long
or more in the Alps (at the speeds I climb). Riding on 100 F days is
not much of a problem. I don't like riding in the cold, though- I'd
be an unhappy Belgian!

>>> However, this requires that you either take off one or two layers
>>> after warming up, or dressing lightly enough so that you're pretty
>>> chilly until you warm up. This varies greatly from person to
>>> person, but in general people tend to overdress in cold
>>> weather. The trick to cold weather is to remove layers before you
>>> get sweaty.
>>
>>I'd agree with the practice you describe, as a way to prevent
>>initial overheating and then getting cold when the insulation
>>provided by your clothing is compromise by moisture, but not the
>>underlying reason you propose.
>
> _ Based on my experience in XC skiing races, I think there is more
> to it than that. I'm faster when I don't sweat. If you're sweating
> your muscles need to be cooled faster than the environmental
> conditions alone can cool them.

Not sure that I buy this notion. I'm not sure your muscles need to be
cooled very much, it seems to be more your core temperature that needs
to be maintained within limits to prevent autonomic dysregulation.

[Tim McNamara]

Booker C. Bense
. stanford.edu>
writes:

> In article >,
> Tim McNamara > wrote:
>>Booker C. Bense
. stanford.edu>
>>writes:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Mark Scardiglia > wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze
>>>>me how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it
>>>>gets below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do
>>>>with the density of the air...
>>>
>>> _ This may sound conter-intiutive, but you are likely
>>> overdressed. You go slower because your muscles are
>>> overheated. From my exeperience, you can actually go faster at 40
>>> degrees, since you don't need to waste energy cooling off.
>>
>>Cooling is not an active process, therefore you don't "waste energy
>>cooling off."
>
> _ Poor choice of words on my part. While cooling off may not be
> active, sweating certainly is. If you're sweating you're wasting
> energy and water.

Sweating doesn't really seem to take a lot of calories. Heck, you're
sweating all the time but it's less noticeable when the temperature is
lower and the air is drier. Dehydration is one of the leading causes
of cold-weather deaths. You are losing water and electrolytes in your
sweat, though.

>> FWIW my personal experience is that I ride fastest and easiest when
>>the temperature is between 80 and 90F.
>
> _ YICK, I grind to a halt at about 80 and when it's 90 I just suffer
> home. I can't really go fast at all until it's 60 or below.

I feel most alive when the mercury climbs above 80 F. I can't wait to
get home from work and go out for as long as bike ride as daylight
allows. Above 100 F, it's a bit hot and I ride more conservatively.
I've never ridden in temps over 103 F or so, as those happen rarely
here in Minnesota.

I will say, though, that one of my worst days on the bike was a hot
one in the Alps in 2002, climbing the Col de la Croix de Fer from
Rochetaillee, then the Telegraphe and the Galibier. It was at least
95 F in the Maurienne valley and in the 70s on the cols. There was
some shade on the Croix de Fer near the bottom and on the Telegraphe,
but none to speak of on the Galibier. I drank 18 full water bottles
and peed once in 10 hours. An absolute sticker of a day. I suppose
long climbs in the heat, with little or no wind to cool one off as a
result, took its toll.

Around here, a long climb takes 6 minutes compared to 10 times as long
or more in the Alps (at the speeds I climb). Riding on 100 F days is
not much of a problem. I don't like riding in the cold, though- I'd
be an unhappy Belgian!

>>> However, this requires that you either take off one or two layers
>>> after warming up, or dressing lightly enough so that you're pretty
>>> chilly until you warm up. This varies greatly from person to
>>> person, but in general people tend to overdress in cold
>>> weather. The trick to cold weather is to remove layers before you
>>> get sweaty.
>>
>>I'd agree with the practice you describe, as a way to prevent
>>initial overheating and then getting cold when the insulation
>>provided by your clothing is compromise by moisture, but not the
>>underlying reason you propose.
>
> _ Based on my experience in XC skiing races, I think there is more
> to it than that. I'm faster when I don't sweat. If you're sweating
> your muscles need to be cooled faster than the environmental
> conditions alone can cool them.

Not sure that I buy this notion. I'm not sure your muscles need to be
cooled very much, it seems to be more your core temperature that needs
to be maintained within limits to prevent autonomic dysregulation.

[Denver C. Fox]

>from roughly -40F (clothed)

Man, you better be clothed!

Will a bicycle's lubricants even work in -40F? (err, you do mean negative 40F -
which would be a record low in Denver - the recent coldest being -25F in the
60's).

Brr!

You hame my respect. No way am I going out in -40F

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
(Family Web Page)

[Denver C. Fox]

>from roughly -40F (clothed)

Man, you better be clothed!

Will a bicycle's lubricants even work in -40F? (err, you do mean negative 40F -
which would be a record low in Denver - the recent coldest being -25F in the
60's).

Brr!

You hame my respect. No way am I going out in -40F

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
(Family Web Page)

[Raptor]

Denver C. Fox wrote:
>>from roughly -40F (clothed)
>
> Man, you better be clothed!
>
> Will a bicycle's lubricants even work in -40F? (err, you do mean negative 40F -
> which would be a record low in Denver - the recent coldest being -25F in the
> 60's).
>
> Brr!
>
> You hame my respect. No way am I going out in -40F
>
> http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
> (Family Web Page)
>

I said I thought it was possible, not that I've done it! And I didn't
say cycling, though I'm sure that's possible too.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

[Raptor]

Denver C. Fox wrote:
>>from roughly -40F (clothed)
>
> Man, you better be clothed!
>
> Will a bicycle's lubricants even work in -40F? (err, you do mean negative 40F -
> which would be a record low in Denver - the recent coldest being -25F in the
> 60's).
>
> Brr!
>
> You hame my respect. No way am I going out in -40F
>
> http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
> (Family Web Page)
>

I said I thought it was possible, not that I've done it! And I didn't
say cycling, though I'm sure that's possible too.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> (Mark Scardiglia) writes:
>
> > I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
> > how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
> > below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
> > density of the air...
>
> I was wondering this today. When it's cold out, my average speed
> drops and my subjective effort increases. I think that it may have to
> do with the fact that cold weather tends to occur with short daylight
> hours and less riding, which in turn leads to less fitness and slower
> speeds and more subjective effort. In other words, I'm out of shape
> when it's cold out.

Don't forget that the grease and tire carcases are stiffer in cold
weather!

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> (Mark Scardiglia) writes:
>
> > I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
> > how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
> > below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
> > density of the air...
>
> I was wondering this today. When it's cold out, my average speed
> drops and my subjective effort increases. I think that it may have to
> do with the fact that cold weather tends to occur with short daylight
> hours and less riding, which in turn leads to less fitness and slower
> speeds and more subjective effort. In other words, I'm out of shape
> when it's cold out.

Don't forget that the grease and tire carcases are stiffer in cold
weather!

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Tim McNamara]

(Denver C. Fox) writes:

>>from roughly -40F (clothed)
>
> Man, you better be clothed!
>
> Will a bicycle's lubricants even work in -40F? (err, you do mean
> negative 40F - which would be a record low in Denver - the recent
> coldest being -25F in the 60's).
>
> Brr!
>
> You hame my respect. No way am I going out in -40F

I've been out snowshoeing at about that. Properly dressed it's fine.
I wouldn't bother to ride a bike in such temperatures, though- I
usually stop riding when my water bottles will freeze. IMHO this is
supposed to be fun, after all.

[Tim McNamara]

(Denver C. Fox) writes:

>>from roughly -40F (clothed)
>
> Man, you better be clothed!
>
> Will a bicycle's lubricants even work in -40F? (err, you do mean
> negative 40F - which would be a record low in Denver - the recent
> coldest being -25F in the 60's).
>
> Brr!
>
> You hame my respect. No way am I going out in -40F

I've been out snowshoeing at about that. Properly dressed it's fine.
I wouldn't bother to ride a bike in such temperatures, though- I
usually stop riding when my water bottles will freeze. IMHO this is
supposed to be fun, after all.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> >from roughly -40F (clothed)
>
> Man, you better be clothed!
>
> Will a bicycle's lubricants even work in -40F? (err, you do mean negative 40F -
> which would be a record low in Denver - the recent coldest being -25F in the
> 60's).

That's the record low? I would have thought it would be colder than
that. When I was growing up in eastern Iowa in the 1970's, we'd go down
into the -20's F at least a couple of times a year, and my bike
continued to work fine down to the coldest day I remember at -33F. (It
was either ride my bike or walk the 2 miles to school, and the bike got
me there a whole lot faster!)

.....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> >from roughly -40F (clothed)
>
> Man, you better be clothed!
>
> Will a bicycle's lubricants even work in -40F? (err, you do mean negative 40F -
> which would be a record low in Denver - the recent coldest being -25F in the
> 60's).

That's the record low? I would have thought it would be colder than
that. When I was growing up in eastern Iowa in the 1970's, we'd go down
into the -20's F at least a couple of times a year, and my bike
continued to work fine down to the coldest day I remember at -33F. (It
was either ride my bike or walk the 2 miles to school, and the bike got
me there a whole lot faster!)

.....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Denver C. Fox]

>That's the record low?

I said "the recent coldest" but also confusingly said "record low" those being
two different things. Sorry.

I believe the record low was in 1936 at -30F, according to a google!

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
(Family Web Page)

[Denver C. Fox]

>That's the record low?

I said "the recent coldest" but also confusingly said "record low" those being
two different things. Sorry.

I believe the record low was in 1936 at -30F, according to a google!

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
(Family Web Page)

[Steph]

"David Kerber" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >,
> says...
>> >from roughly -40F (clothed)
>>
>> Man, you better be clothed!
>>
>> Will a bicycle's lubricants even work in -40F? (err, you do mean negative
>> 40F -
>> which would be a record low in Denver - the recent coldest being -25F in
>> the
>> 60's).
>
> That's the record low? I would have thought it would be colder than
> that. When I was growing up in eastern Iowa in the 1970's, we'd go down
> into the -20's F at least a couple of times a year, and my bike
> continued to work fine down to the coldest day I remember at -33F. (It
> was either ride my bike or walk the 2 miles to school, and the bike got
> me there a whole lot faster!)
>
> ....
I grew up in NE Iowa...with wind chills...and drifting snow it was beastly.

[Steph]

"David Kerber" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >,
> says...
>> >from roughly -40F (clothed)
>>
>> Man, you better be clothed!
>>
>> Will a bicycle's lubricants even work in -40F? (err, you do mean negative
>> 40F -
>> which would be a record low in Denver - the recent coldest being -25F in
>> the
>> 60's).
>
> That's the record low? I would have thought it would be colder than
> that. When I was growing up in eastern Iowa in the 1970's, we'd go down
> into the -20's F at least a couple of times a year, and my bike
> continued to work fine down to the coldest day I remember at -33F. (It
> was either ride my bike or walk the 2 miles to school, and the bike got
> me there a whole lot faster!)
>
> ....
I grew up in NE Iowa...with wind chills...and drifting snow it was beastly.

[NobodyMan]

On 15 Nov 2004 10:01:13 -0800, (SlowRider)
wrote:

(Mark Scardiglia) wrote in message >...
>> I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
>> how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
>> below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
>> density of the air...
>
>I am so glad to hear other people talking about this! I've noticed
>the same thing over the years and I figured either (a) I was really
>out of shape (depressing) or (b) I was just being a wimp that day. It
>never occurred to me that the body might require more energy to warm
>the cold air.
>
>Off-hand, I'd guess the benefits of cold air are: dense air = more O2
>per breath; cold air may mean tires won't deform as much (?) --
>anything else?? Doesn't sound like much.

Cold air, being denser, is also harder to pull in and push out of the
lungs. Ever go diving? Many divers get exhausted after an easy day
of diving. It's not from physical effort of swimming, but the fact
that as you are breathing the pressurized air from your tank, you are
working much harder to pull in in than you would air at the surface.

>The drawbacks are: denser air = higher drag for any given KPH; more
>clothing = constricted breathing, higher drag coefficient and heavier
>load; cold lubricants = more effort; cold air = possibly more energy
>spent keeping body warm.
>
>Neither one sounds like much -- everything is probably on the order of
>0-2% of total power/resistance, but the drawbacks do appear to
>outweigh the benefits in terms of performance.
>
>In any case, it makes me feel better to think the cold weather is just
>a tougher environment for riding...
>
>JR

[NobodyMan]

On 15 Nov 2004 10:01:13 -0800, (SlowRider)
wrote:

(Mark Scardiglia) wrote in message >...
>> I'm OK riding in the colder weather, but it never ceases to amaze me
>> how much more work it seems to be to make the bike go once it gets
>> below 40 degrees. Just don't tell me it's mostly got to do with the
>> density of the air...
>
>I am so glad to hear other people talking about this! I've noticed
>the same thing over the years and I figured either (a) I was really
>out of shape (depressing) or (b) I was just being a wimp that day. It
>never occurred to me that the body might require more energy to warm
>the cold air.
>
>Off-hand, I'd guess the benefits of cold air are: dense air = more O2
>per breath; cold air may mean tires won't deform as much (?) --
>anything else?? Doesn't sound like much.

Cold air, being denser, is also harder to pull in and push out of the
lungs. Ever go diving? Many divers get exhausted after an easy day
of diving. It's not from physical effort of swimming, but the fact
that as you are breathing the pressurized air from your tank, you are
working much harder to pull in in than you would air at the surface.

>The drawbacks are: denser air = higher drag for any given KPH; more
>clothing = constricted breathing, higher drag coefficient and heavier
>load; cold lubricants = more effort; cold air = possibly more energy
>spent keeping body warm.
>
>Neither one sounds like much -- everything is probably on the order of
>0-2% of total power/resistance, but the drawbacks do appear to
>outweigh the benefits in terms of performance.
>
>In any case, it makes me feel better to think the cold weather is just
>a tougher environment for riding...
>
>JR

[Denver C. Fox]

>I said I thought it was possible, not that I've done it! And I didn't
>say cycling, though I'm sure that's possible too.

Sorry, I thought this was a bicyclling usenet group. My mistake!

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
(Family Web Page)

[Denver C. Fox]

>I said I thought it was possible, not that I've done it! And I didn't
>say cycling, though I'm sure that's possible too.

Sorry, I thought this was a bicyclling usenet group. My mistake!

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
(Family Web Page)

[Denver C. Fox]

Okay, to be exact, here is your entire post.

First, here is the post you quoted to which you were responding:

"> Interesting. My average speeds are 1-2 mph higher on hot days versus
> cooler days within a given week in the summer. I feel loose, relaxed
> and efficient above 80 F, not too bad above 65 F, and from thereon
> down I feel tighter and less efficient when pedaling. Granted this is
> all subjective, but as the temps drop my average speed drops as
> well. YMMV."

Which is discussing average speed in different temps while RIDING A BICYCLE!

Then, here is your response to this thread about riding a bicycle in different
temps:

"Living in a four-season climate (presumably I'm not the only one), I
acclimatize myself twice a year and enjoy exercising outdoors in all
weather, eventually. More so in Summer for obvious reasons. I would
expect my performance to be more of a function of my current state of
acclimatization than mere temperature.

If you are patient and determined, I believe you can acclimatize
yourself to perform well from roughly -40F (clothed) to roughly 110F
(scantily clothed but sunscreened)."

In your response you state "PERFORM." I guess I didn't go too far out in
assuming the PERFORM bit was PERFORMing on a bicycle, as you were replying to a
post about bicycling in a USENET bicycling forum. Also, I think it would be
reasonable to assume that you were speaking from experience, otherwise, on what
basis could you make your statements about -40F?

Have a good day.

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
(Family Web Page)

[Denver C. Fox]

Okay, to be exact, here is your entire post.

First, here is the post you quoted to which you were responding:

"> Interesting. My average speeds are 1-2 mph higher on hot days versus
> cooler days within a given week in the summer. I feel loose, relaxed
> and efficient above 80 F, not too bad above 65 F, and from thereon
> down I feel tighter and less efficient when pedaling. Granted this is
> all subjective, but as the temps drop my average speed drops as
> well. YMMV."

Which is discussing average speed in different temps while RIDING A BICYCLE!

Then, here is your response to this thread about riding a bicycle in different
temps:

"Living in a four-season climate (presumably I'm not the only one), I
acclimatize myself twice a year and enjoy exercising outdoors in all
weather, eventually. More so in Summer for obvious reasons. I would
expect my performance to be more of a function of my current state of
acclimatization than mere temperature.

If you are patient and determined, I believe you can acclimatize
yourself to perform well from roughly -40F (clothed) to roughly 110F
(scantily clothed but sunscreened)."

In your response you state "PERFORM." I guess I didn't go too far out in
assuming the PERFORM bit was PERFORMing on a bicycle, as you were replying to a
post about bicycling in a USENET bicycling forum. Also, I think it would be
reasonable to assume that you were speaking from experience, otherwise, on what
basis could you make your statements about -40F?

Have a good day.

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
(Family Web Page)

[Raptor]

Denver C. Fox wrote:
> Okay, to be exact, here is your entire post.
>
> First, here is the post you quoted to which you were responding:
>
> "> Interesting. My average speeds are 1-2 mph higher on hot days versus
>
>>cooler days within a given week in the summer. I feel loose, relaxed
>>and efficient above 80 F, not too bad above 65 F, and from thereon
>>down I feel tighter and less efficient when pedaling. Granted this is
>>all subjective, but as the temps drop my average speed drops as
>>well. YMMV."
>
>
> Which is discussing average speed in different temps while RIDING A BICYCLE!
>
> Then, here is your response to this thread about riding a bicycle in different
> temps:
>
> "Living in a four-season climate (presumably I'm not the only one), I
> acclimatize myself twice a year and enjoy exercising outdoors in all
> weather, eventually. More so in Summer for obvious reasons. I would
> expect my performance to be more of a function of my current state of
> acclimatization than mere temperature.
>
> If you are patient and determined, I believe you can acclimatize
> yourself to perform well from roughly -40F (clothed) to roughly 110F
> (scantily clothed but sunscreened)."
>
> In your response you state "PERFORM." I guess I didn't go too far out in
> assuming the PERFORM bit was PERFORMing on a bicycle, as you were replying to a
> post about bicycling in a USENET bicycling forum. Also, I think it would be
> reasonable to assume that you were speaking from experience, otherwise, on what
> basis could you make your statements about -40F?
>
> Have a good day.
>
> http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
> (Family Web Page)

Check your attributions. You've got two statements from two different
people above.

"Perform" is a pretty generic term, but it's not unreasonable to read
into it that cycling is at least a part of it. But I tend to be a
stickler on the words I use (far from perfect...), and I was in fact
thinking of all kinds of athletic "performance" when I wrote my part of
the above, the second part.

I actually tend not to ride much in Winter. Besides the cold weather,
the days are short, the road conditions often sucky, and most
importantly, cagers aren't used to seeing bikes on the road.

But I've been known to snowshoe, hike and ski a couple different ways in
non-cycling season.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

[Raptor]

Denver C. Fox wrote:
> Okay, to be exact, here is your entire post.
>
> First, here is the post you quoted to which you were responding:
>
> "> Interesting. My average speeds are 1-2 mph higher on hot days versus
>
>>cooler days within a given week in the summer. I feel loose, relaxed
>>and efficient above 80 F, not too bad above 65 F, and from thereon
>>down I feel tighter and less efficient when pedaling. Granted this is
>>all subjective, but as the temps drop my average speed drops as
>>well. YMMV."
>
>
> Which is discussing average speed in different temps while RIDING A BICYCLE!
>
> Then, here is your response to this thread about riding a bicycle in different
> temps:
>
> "Living in a four-season climate (presumably I'm not the only one), I
> acclimatize myself twice a year and enjoy exercising outdoors in all
> weather, eventually. More so in Summer for obvious reasons. I would
> expect my performance to be more of a function of my current state of
> acclimatization than mere temperature.
>
> If you are patient and determined, I believe you can acclimatize
> yourself to perform well from roughly -40F (clothed) to roughly 110F
> (scantily clothed but sunscreened)."
>
> In your response you state "PERFORM." I guess I didn't go too far out in
> assuming the PERFORM bit was PERFORMing on a bicycle, as you were replying to a
> post about bicycling in a USENET bicycling forum. Also, I think it would be
> reasonable to assume that you were speaking from experience, otherwise, on what
> basis could you make your statements about -40F?
>
> Have a good day.
>
> http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
> (Family Web Page)

Check your attributions. You've got two statements from two different
people above.

"Perform" is a pretty generic term, but it's not unreasonable to read
into it that cycling is at least a part of it. But I tend to be a
stickler on the words I use (far from perfect...), and I was in fact
thinking of all kinds of athletic "performance" when I wrote my part of
the above, the second part.

I actually tend not to ride much in Winter. Besides the cold weather,
the days are short, the road conditions often sucky, and most
importantly, cagers aren't used to seeing bikes on the road.

But I've been known to snowshoe, hike and ski a couple different ways in
non-cycling season.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

[SlowRider]

Tim McNamara > wrote in message >...
> I've been out snowshoeing at about that. Properly dressed it's fine.
> I wouldn't bother to ride a bike in such temperatures, though- I
> usually stop riding when my water bottles will freeze. IMHO this is
> supposed to be fun, after all.

Oh yeah! BTDT -- commuting to work and after 15 minutes you have to
fight to open the valve on the water bottle. Still, you gotta love
the looks on people's faces when you walk in the door: "You rode your
bike??"

Insane? Yes. Yes. In fact, I am.


JR

[SlowRider]

Tim McNamara > wrote in message >...
> I've been out snowshoeing at about that. Properly dressed it's fine.
> I wouldn't bother to ride a bike in such temperatures, though- I
> usually stop riding when my water bottles will freeze. IMHO this is
> supposed to be fun, after all.

Oh yeah! BTDT -- commuting to work and after 15 minutes you have to
fight to open the valve on the water bottle. Still, you gotta love
the looks on people's faces when you walk in the door: "You rode your
bike??"

Insane? Yes. Yes. In fact, I am.


JR

[SlowRider]

Booker C. Bense . stanford.edu> wrote in message >...
> _ YICK, I grind to a halt at about 80 and when it's 90 I
> just suffer home. I can't really go fast at all until it's
> 60 or below.

I'm just the opposite -- I love riding in the heat as long as the
humidity's low.

> _ Based on my experience in XC skiing races, I think there is more to it
> than that. I'm faster when I don't sweat. If you're sweating your
> muscles need to be cooled faster than the environmental
> conditions alone can cool them.

You've made some interesting points. Every time I ride in the cold I
make sure to put on enough layers to be comfortable, then strip them
off as I warm up; but I always wind up covered in sweat when I'm done.
I'll have to try a short ride with less stuff on and see how I do.

JR

[SlowRider]

Booker C. Bense . stanford.edu> wrote in message >...
> _ YICK, I grind to a halt at about 80 and when it's 90 I
> just suffer home. I can't really go fast at all until it's
> 60 or below.

I'm just the opposite -- I love riding in the heat as long as the
humidity's low.

> _ Based on my experience in XC skiing races, I think there is more to it
> than that. I'm faster when I don't sweat. If you're sweating your
> muscles need to be cooled faster than the environmental
> conditions alone can cool them.

You've made some interesting points. Every time I ride in the cold I
make sure to put on enough layers to be comfortable, then strip them
off as I warm up; but I always wind up covered in sweat when I'm done.
I'll have to try a short ride with less stuff on and see how I do.

JR

[Booker C. Bense]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article >,
SlowRider > wrote:
>Booker C. Bense . stanford.edu> wrote in message
>...
>> _ YICK, I grind to a halt at about 80 and when it's 90 I
>> just suffer home. I can't really go fast at all until it's
>> 60 or below.
>
>I'm just the opposite -- I love riding in the heat as long as the
>humidity's low.
>
>> _ Based on my experience in XC skiing races, I think there is more to it
>> than that. I'm faster when I don't sweat. If you're sweating your
>> muscles need to be cooled faster than the environmental
>> conditions alone can cool them.
>
>You've made some interesting points. Every time I ride in the cold I
>make sure to put on enough layers to be comfortable, then strip them
>off as I warm up; but I always wind up covered in sweat when I'm done.
> I'll have to try a short ride with less stuff on and see how I do.
>

_ I've been a bit careless with language here. You sweat all the
time when active, but you only notice it when the sweat doesn't
evaporate right away. This to me is a sign of a "heat imbalance",
your body is attempting to "turn up the air conditioner" so to
speak. If you can do the equivalent of "opening a window",
your muscles will work better.

_ One caution, hypothermia is a real possiblity in these
conditions. If you think you might be caught from shelter
for more than 3 hrs for whatever reason, carry an extra
layer.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQZ5oZ2TWTAjn5N/lAQENhgP/Z+UoG+3+rMudPTrNkcWo5Ks3NMovpwl4
zBisehqpqyp8R4m7dP6+S76jO+LykhpNbU012guaVm3AE3pEY/QhmI1Adkxfz22U
jTFudYfYm7zQBsajPPK8rxtouAdWBVeZG/76FO0T4yo5iDozydZPVVLyEFv6RJga
u3HMgZAuKTE=
=gn8c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Booker C. Bense]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article >,
SlowRider > wrote:
>Booker C. Bense . stanford.edu> wrote in message
>...
>> _ YICK, I grind to a halt at about 80 and when it's 90 I
>> just suffer home. I can't really go fast at all until it's
>> 60 or below.
>
>I'm just the opposite -- I love riding in the heat as long as the
>humidity's low.
>
>> _ Based on my experience in XC skiing races, I think there is more to it
>> than that. I'm faster when I don't sweat. If you're sweating your
>> muscles need to be cooled faster than the environmental
>> conditions alone can cool them.
>
>You've made some interesting points. Every time I ride in the cold I
>make sure to put on enough layers to be comfortable, then strip them
>off as I warm up; but I always wind up covered in sweat when I'm done.
> I'll have to try a short ride with less stuff on and see how I do.
>

_ I've been a bit careless with language here. You sweat all the
time when active, but you only notice it when the sweat doesn't
evaporate right away. This to me is a sign of a "heat imbalance",
your body is attempting to "turn up the air conditioner" so to
speak. If you can do the equivalent of "opening a window",
your muscles will work better.

_ One caution, hypothermia is a real possiblity in these
conditions. If you think you might be caught from shelter
for more than 3 hrs for whatever reason, carry an extra
layer.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQZ5oZ2TWTAjn5N/lAQENhgP/Z+UoG+3+rMudPTrNkcWo5Ks3NMovpwl4
zBisehqpqyp8R4m7dP6+S76jO+LykhpNbU012guaVm3AE3pEY/QhmI1Adkxfz22U
jTFudYfYm7zQBsajPPK8rxtouAdWBVeZG/76FO0T4yo5iDozydZPVVLyEFv6RJga
u3HMgZAuKTE=
=gn8c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Chuck Anderson]

......... shrinkage? ô¿Ô¬

But really, here's a thought. Would the air density difference (say from
80º to 20º) substantially alter the amount of oxygen you get in each
breath? If so, colder temps would make oxygen intake more efficient.
Or put another way; in high temperature air you would receive less
oxygen per breath.

--
*****************************
Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO
http://www.CycleTourist.com
Integrity is obvious.
The lack of it is common.
*****************************

[Chuck Anderson]

......... shrinkage? ô¿Ô¬

But really, here's a thought. Would the air density difference (say from
80º to 20º) substantially alter the amount of oxygen you get in each
breath? If so, colder temps would make oxygen intake more efficient.
Or put another way; in high temperature air you would receive less
oxygen per breath.

--
*****************************
Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO
http://www.CycleTourist.com
Integrity is obvious.
The lack of it is common.
*****************************

[Adelantado]

The size of all the rings contract progressivly as they get colder so
that they are much smaller in the winter than in the summer. This
means more effort for the same amount of work.

It really becomes a problem in norther Canada and alaska where the
rings are so small in the winter that walking and dog sleading are the
only means of travel.

[Adelantado]

The size of all the rings contract progressivly as they get colder so
that they are much smaller in the winter than in the summer. This
means more effort for the same amount of work.

It really becomes a problem in norther Canada and alaska where the
rings are so small in the winter that walking and dog sleading are the
only means of travel.

[David Kerber]

In article <oxvnd.119085$R05.43462@attbi_s53>, =20
says...
> ........ shrinkage? =F4=BF=D4=AC
>=20
> But really, here's a thought. Would the air density difference (say from=
=20
> 80=BA to 20=BA) substantially alter the amount of oxygen you get in each=
=20
> breath? If so, colder temps would make oxygen intake more efficient.
> Or put another way; in high temperature air you would receive less=20
> oxygen per breath.

Oxygen intake isn't the limiting factor, anyway; oxygen *transport* (by=20
your red blood cells) is much more limiting. If you measure the amount=20
of oxygen in the air you exhale, your body is only pulling a few percent=20
of its oxygen content, no matter how hard you are working.

--=20
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the=20
newsgroups if possible).

[David Kerber]

In article <oxvnd.119085$R05.43462@attbi_s53>, =20
says...
> ........ shrinkage? =F4=BF=D4=AC
>=20
> But really, here's a thought. Would the air density difference (say from=
=20
> 80=BA to 20=BA) substantially alter the amount of oxygen you get in each=
=20
> breath? If so, colder temps would make oxygen intake more efficient.
> Or put another way; in high temperature air you would receive less=20
> oxygen per breath.

Oxygen intake isn't the limiting factor, anyway; oxygen *transport* (by=20
your red blood cells) is much more limiting. If you measure the amount=20
of oxygen in the air you exhale, your body is only pulling a few percent=20
of its oxygen content, no matter how hard you are working.

--=20
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the=20
newsgroups if possible).

[Tim McNamara]

David Kerber > writes:

> In article <oxvnd.119085$R05.43462@attbi_s53>,
> says...
>> ........ shrinkage? ô¿Ô¬
>>
>> But really, here's a thought. Would the air density difference (say
>> from 80º to 20º) substantially alter the amount of oxygen you get
>> in each breath? If so, colder temps would make oxygen intake more
>> efficient. Or put another way; in high temperature air you would
>> receive less oxygen per breath.
>
> Oxygen intake isn't the limiting factor, anyway; oxygen *transport*
> (by your red blood cells) is much more limiting. If you measure the
> amount of oxygen in the air you exhale, your body is only pulling a
> few percent of its oxygen content, no matter how hard you are
> working.

Using Miguel Indurain as an example, he was 80 kg and had an
astonishing VO2 max of 88ml/kg/min (published in VeloNews during
Indurain's run at the top; an exercise physiologist I know had a
colleague that tested Greg Lemond at Ball State University, who hit 90
ml/kg/min). If I've done my math right, Indurain's VO2 would be 7.04
l/min of O2 uptake. He had a functional lung capacity of about 8
liters- so at maximum exertion he'd breathe maybe 320 liters of air a
minute (assuming about 40 breaths a minute).

So, at 320 liters per minute there would be 67.2 liters of O2
available. If he was absorbing 7.04 liters of the 67.2, then he was
extracting only 10.4% This seems low to me, so further research brings
us to:

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/ventphys.htm

which suggests that 320 liters per minute is a major overestimate of
Indurain's maximal ventilatory volume and that 200 liters might be
more reasonable. That's still a lot of air. Assuming 200 liters,
Indurain would then be absorbing about 17% of the available oxygen.
It also indicates that Indurain's VO2 max was significantly higher
than the elite rowers the author mentions on the Web site- 7.04
liters per minute compared to the rowers' 5.09 while cycling. Wow.

Also of interest:

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/cycling.htm

[Tim McNamara]

David Kerber > writes:

> In article <oxvnd.119085$R05.43462@attbi_s53>,
> says...
>> ........ shrinkage? ô¿Ô¬
>>
>> But really, here's a thought. Would the air density difference (say
>> from 80º to 20º) substantially alter the amount of oxygen you get
>> in each breath? If so, colder temps would make oxygen intake more
>> efficient. Or put another way; in high temperature air you would
>> receive less oxygen per breath.
>
> Oxygen intake isn't the limiting factor, anyway; oxygen *transport*
> (by your red blood cells) is much more limiting. If you measure the
> amount of oxygen in the air you exhale, your body is only pulling a
> few percent of its oxygen content, no matter how hard you are
> working.

Using Miguel Indurain as an example, he was 80 kg and had an
astonishing VO2 max of 88ml/kg/min (published in VeloNews during
Indurain's run at the top; an exercise physiologist I know had a
colleague that tested Greg Lemond at Ball State University, who hit 90
ml/kg/min). If I've done my math right, Indurain's VO2 would be 7.04
l/min of O2 uptake. He had a functional lung capacity of about 8
liters- so at maximum exertion he'd breathe maybe 320 liters of air a
minute (assuming about 40 breaths a minute).

So, at 320 liters per minute there would be 67.2 liters of O2
available. If he was absorbing 7.04 liters of the 67.2, then he was
extracting only 10.4% This seems low to me, so further research brings
us to:

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/ventphys.htm

which suggests that 320 liters per minute is a major overestimate of
Indurain's maximal ventilatory volume and that 200 liters might be
more reasonable. That's still a lot of air. Assuming 200 liters,
Indurain would then be absorbing about 17% of the available oxygen.
It also indicates that Indurain's VO2 max was significantly higher
than the elite rowers the author mentions on the Web site- 7.04
liters per minute compared to the rowers' 5.09 while cycling. Wow.

Also of interest:

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/cycling.htm

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> > Oxygen intake isn't the limiting factor, anyway; oxygen *transport*
> > (by your red blood cells) is much more limiting. If you measure the
> > amount of oxygen in the air you exhale, your body is only pulling a
> > few percent of its oxygen content, no matter how hard you are
> > working.
>
> Using Miguel Indurain as an example, he was 80 kg and had an
> astonishing VO2 max of 88ml/kg/min (published in VeloNews during
> Indurain's run at the top; an exercise physiologist I know had a
> colleague that tested Greg Lemond at Ball State University, who hit 90
> ml/kg/min). If I've done my math right, Indurain's VO2 would be 7.04
> l/min of O2 uptake. He had a functional lung capacity of about 8
> liters- so at maximum exertion he'd breathe maybe 320 liters of air a
> minute (assuming about 40 breaths a minute).
>
> So, at 320 liters per minute there would be 67.2 liters of O2
> available. If he was absorbing 7.04 liters of the 67.2, then he was
> extracting only 10.4% This seems low to me, so further research brings
> us to:
>
> http://home.hia.no/~stephens/ventphys.htm
>
> which suggests that 320 liters per minute is a major overestimate of
> Indurain's maximal ventilatory volume and that 200 liters might be
> more reasonable. That's still a lot of air. Assuming 200 liters,
> Indurain would then be absorbing about 17% of the available oxygen.

If someone like Indurain is only using 17% of the available O2, then us
normal humans are probably going to be well below 10%.

> It also indicates that Indurain's VO2 max was significantly higher
> than the elite rowers the author mentions on the Web site- 7.04
> liters per minute compared to the rowers' 5.09 while cycling. Wow.

Compared to road cycling, rowing has a large anaerobic component, since
the races only last a few minutes, so I wouldn't expect a particularly
high VO2max. Marathoners would be a better comparison.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> > Oxygen intake isn't the limiting factor, anyway; oxygen *transport*
> > (by your red blood cells) is much more limiting. If you measure the
> > amount of oxygen in the air you exhale, your body is only pulling a
> > few percent of its oxygen content, no matter how hard you are
> > working.
>
> Using Miguel Indurain as an example, he was 80 kg and had an
> astonishing VO2 max of 88ml/kg/min (published in VeloNews during
> Indurain's run at the top; an exercise physiologist I know had a
> colleague that tested Greg Lemond at Ball State University, who hit 90
> ml/kg/min). If I've done my math right, Indurain's VO2 would be 7.04
> l/min of O2 uptake. He had a functional lung capacity of about 8
> liters- so at maximum exertion he'd breathe maybe 320 liters of air a
> minute (assuming about 40 breaths a minute).
>
> So, at 320 liters per minute there would be 67.2 liters of O2
> available. If he was absorbing 7.04 liters of the 67.2, then he was
> extracting only 10.4% This seems low to me, so further research brings
> us to:
>
> http://home.hia.no/~stephens/ventphys.htm
>
> which suggests that 320 liters per minute is a major overestimate of
> Indurain's maximal ventilatory volume and that 200 liters might be
> more reasonable. That's still a lot of air. Assuming 200 liters,
> Indurain would then be absorbing about 17% of the available oxygen.

If someone like Indurain is only using 17% of the available O2, then us
normal humans are probably going to be well below 10%.

> It also indicates that Indurain's VO2 max was significantly higher
> than the elite rowers the author mentions on the Web site- 7.04
> liters per minute compared to the rowers' 5.09 while cycling. Wow.

Compared to road cycling, rowing has a large anaerobic component, since
the races only last a few minutes, so I wouldn't expect a particularly
high VO2max. Marathoners would be a better comparison.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Tim McNamara]

David Kerber > writes:

> In article >,
> says...
>
> ...
>
>> > Oxygen intake isn't the limiting factor, anyway; oxygen
>> > *transport* (by your red blood cells) is much more limiting. If
>> > you measure the amount of oxygen in the air you exhale, your body
>> > is only pulling a few percent of its oxygen content, no matter
>> > how hard you are working.
>>
>> Using Miguel Indurain as an example, he was 80 kg and had an
>> astonishing VO2 max of 88ml/kg/min (published in VeloNews during
>> Indurain's run at the top; an exercise physiologist I know had a
>> colleague that tested Greg Lemond at Ball State University, who hit
>> 90 ml/kg/min). If I've done my math right, Indurain's VO2 would be
>> 7.04 l/min of O2 uptake. He had a functional lung capacity of
>> about 8 liters- so at maximum exertion he'd breathe maybe 320
>> liters of air a minute (assuming about 40 breaths a minute).
>>
>> So, at 320 liters per minute there would be 67.2 liters of O2
>> available. If he was absorbing 7.04 liters of the 67.2, then he
>> was extracting only 10.4% This seems low to me, so further research
>> brings us to:
>>
>> http://home.hia.no/~stephens/ventphys.htm
>>
>> which suggests that 320 liters per minute is a major overestimate
>> of Indurain's maximal ventilatory volume and that 200 liters might
>> be more reasonable. That's still a lot of air. Assuming 200
>> liters, Indurain would then be absorbing about 17% of the available
>> oxygen.
>
> If someone like Indurain is only using 17% of the available O2, then
> us normal humans are probably going to be well below 10%.

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, but I had't found any hard
numbers. I'm quite sure it's been measured. One Web site of "science
for the layman" type stated that room air contains about 21% oxygen
and exhaled air contains about 15%. If that's correct, we absorb
about 25% of the oxygen in each breath. A little further hunting
today came up with a figure of exhaled air containing about 15.5% O2-
which does again suggest that we absorb about 25% of the available O2
at rest.

I could see how O2 absorption per breath could actually be reduced
under exertion, when breathing becomes more rapid. The time involved
for red blood cells to dump off CO2 and uptake O2 wouldn't change, but
air exchange is much more rapid. We might exchange efficiency for
higher volume at maximal exertion.

>> It also indicates that Indurain's VO2 max was significantly higher
>> than the elite rowers the author mentions on the Web site- 7.04
>> liters per minute compared to the rowers' 5.09 while cycling. Wow.
>
> Compared to road cycling, rowing has a large anaerobic component,
> since the races only last a few minutes, so I wouldn't expect a
> particularly high VO2max. Marathoners would be a better comparison.

[Tim McNamara]

David Kerber > writes:

> In article >,
> says...
>
> ...
>
>> > Oxygen intake isn't the limiting factor, anyway; oxygen
>> > *transport* (by your red blood cells) is much more limiting. If
>> > you measure the amount of oxygen in the air you exhale, your body
>> > is only pulling a few percent of its oxygen content, no matter
>> > how hard you are working.
>>
>> Using Miguel Indurain as an example, he was 80 kg and had an
>> astonishing VO2 max of 88ml/kg/min (published in VeloNews during
>> Indurain's run at the top; an exercise physiologist I know had a
>> colleague that tested Greg Lemond at Ball State University, who hit
>> 90 ml/kg/min). If I've done my math right, Indurain's VO2 would be
>> 7.04 l/min of O2 uptake. He had a functional lung capacity of
>> about 8 liters- so at maximum exertion he'd breathe maybe 320
>> liters of air a minute (assuming about 40 breaths a minute).
>>
>> So, at 320 liters per minute there would be 67.2 liters of O2
>> available. If he was absorbing 7.04 liters of the 67.2, then he
>> was extracting only 10.4% This seems low to me, so further research
>> brings us to:
>>
>> http://home.hia.no/~stephens/ventphys.htm
>>
>> which suggests that 320 liters per minute is a major overestimate
>> of Indurain's maximal ventilatory volume and that 200 liters might
>> be more reasonable. That's still a lot of air. Assuming 200
>> liters, Indurain would then be absorbing about 17% of the available
>> oxygen.
>
> If someone like Indurain is only using 17% of the available O2, then
> us normal humans are probably going to be well below 10%.

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, but I had't found any hard
numbers. I'm quite sure it's been measured. One Web site of "science
for the layman" type stated that room air contains about 21% oxygen
and exhaled air contains about 15%. If that's correct, we absorb
about 25% of the oxygen in each breath. A little further hunting
today came up with a figure of exhaled air containing about 15.5% O2-
which does again suggest that we absorb about 25% of the available O2
at rest.

I could see how O2 absorption per breath could actually be reduced
under exertion, when breathing becomes more rapid. The time involved
for red blood cells to dump off CO2 and uptake O2 wouldn't change, but
air exchange is much more rapid. We might exchange efficiency for
higher volume at maximal exertion.

>> It also indicates that Indurain's VO2 max was significantly higher
>> than the elite rowers the author mentions on the Web site- 7.04
>> liters per minute compared to the rowers' 5.09 while cycling. Wow.
>
> Compared to road cycling, rowing has a large anaerobic component,
> since the races only last a few minutes, so I wouldn't expect a
> particularly high VO2max. Marathoners would be a better comparison.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> >> which suggests that 320 liters per minute is a major overestimate
> >> of Indurain's maximal ventilatory volume and that 200 liters might
> >> be more reasonable. That's still a lot of air. Assuming 200
> >> liters, Indurain would then be absorbing about 17% of the available
> >> oxygen.
> >
> > If someone like Indurain is only using 17% of the available O2, then
> > us normal humans are probably going to be well below 10%.
>
> I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, but I had't found any hard
> numbers. I'm quite sure it's been measured. One Web site of "science
> for the layman" type stated that room air contains about 21% oxygen
> and exhaled air contains about 15%. If that's correct, we absorb
> about 25% of the oxygen in each breath. A little further hunting
> today came up with a figure of exhaled air containing about 15.5% O2-
> which does again suggest that we absorb about 25% of the available O2
> at rest.
>
> I could see how O2 absorption per breath could actually be reduced
> under exertion, when breathing becomes more rapid. The time involved
> for red blood cells to dump off CO2 and uptake O2 wouldn't change, but
> air exchange is much more rapid. We might exchange efficiency for
> higher volume at maximal exertion.

Good point, and one I hadn't thought of. At a given O2 consumption rate
(= exertion level), the higher air exchange rate would raise the average
O2 concentration of the air in the lungs, increasing the average rate of
diffusion through the membranes.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> >> which suggests that 320 liters per minute is a major overestimate
> >> of Indurain's maximal ventilatory volume and that 200 liters might
> >> be more reasonable. That's still a lot of air. Assuming 200
> >> liters, Indurain would then be absorbing about 17% of the available
> >> oxygen.
> >
> > If someone like Indurain is only using 17% of the available O2, then
> > us normal humans are probably going to be well below 10%.
>
> I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, but I had't found any hard
> numbers. I'm quite sure it's been measured. One Web site of "science
> for the layman" type stated that room air contains about 21% oxygen
> and exhaled air contains about 15%. If that's correct, we absorb
> about 25% of the oxygen in each breath. A little further hunting
> today came up with a figure of exhaled air containing about 15.5% O2-
> which does again suggest that we absorb about 25% of the available O2
> at rest.
>
> I could see how O2 absorption per breath could actually be reduced
> under exertion, when breathing becomes more rapid. The time involved
> for red blood cells to dump off CO2 and uptake O2 wouldn't change, but
> air exchange is much more rapid. We might exchange efficiency for
> higher volume at maximal exertion.

Good point, and one I hadn't thought of. At a given O2 consumption rate
(= exertion level), the higher air exchange rate would raise the average
O2 concentration of the air in the lungs, increasing the average rate of
diffusion through the membranes.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).