I finally understand.

[Maggie]

I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
society.

Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.

I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
the group yet.

How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?

Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down, holding
a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take the
secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".

Maggie.

[Roger Zoul]

Maggie wrote:
:: I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows
:: old. I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
:: society.
::
:: Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
::
:: I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath,
:: or been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part
:: of the group yet.
::
:: How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
:: sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
::
:: Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down,
:: holding a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if
:: I take the secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless,
:: cyclists".

Sadly, you don't understand at all. I'm 47, I'm not 18. I compete only
with myself at age 47. I simply don't place the type of limits on me that
you place on you. You seem to think that just because you're 50, you can't
do some things. So it is said, so it is.

[Matthew]

Maggie > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows
old.

A sing-along for you.
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/4everyoungrs.htm

[psycholist]

"Maggie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
> I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
> society.
>
> Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
>
> I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
> been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
> the group yet.
>
> How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
> sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
>
> Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down, holding
> a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take the
> secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".
>
> Maggie.

No Maggie, you're not really getting it. It's not that we're ageless and
timeless. It's that we're just plain superior to others of our species.
You don't qualify for membership unless your resting heart rate is below 40.

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

[Fritz]

On 31 May 2005 05:48:21 -0700, "Maggie" >
wrote:

>I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
>I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
>society.
>
>Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
>
>I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
>been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
>the group yet.
>
>How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
>sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
>
>Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down, holding
>a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take the
>secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".
>
>Maggie.


Oh but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now.

Bob Dylan

[Jeff Starr]

On 31 May 2005 05:48:21 -0700, "Maggie" >
wrote:

>I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
>I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
>society.
>
>Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
>
>I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
>been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
>the group yet.
>
>How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
>sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
>
>Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down, holding
>a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take the
>secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".
>
>Maggie.

Lately, it seems this NG is all about Maggie, and her need to be the
center of attention.

How you gain membership, to your stay youthful, at any age, society,
is to get out and ride. It's all about the bicycle, and riding it.

Although, you could try standing on your head, in the corner of your
office, for , let's say, maybe 3-4 hours. That should do it;-)


Life is Good!
Jeff

[Maggie]

Jeff Starr wrote:
> Although, you could try standing on your head, in the corner of your
> office, for , let's say, maybe 3-4 hours. That should do it;-)
>
> Life is Good!
> Jeff

I WUV YOU TOO JEFFY. :-)

Maggie and Jeffy sitting in a tree.

Bob Dylan is right. But I think he was referring to mentally younger.


I could not be mentally younger if I tried. Mentally I will always be
18. I'm riding my bike every day with my cyclocomputer thing on it. I
am waiting for the hands of time to turn back. Or to drop dead.
Whichever comes first.

Every day I feel myself getting younger. Soon I will be younger than
my kids.

And I can take alot of verbal abuse. So bring it on. I'm not a
delicate flower. More of a man eating plant.

As far as the Newsgroup....its the only one I post to. Except for an
occasional post here and there on some other topic.

And there are a hell of a lot of topics on this NG that I never post
to. We hardly ever post on the same thread Jeff. So be nice.

Love from "It's all about Maggie".

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 31 May 2005 08:08:43 -0600, >,
"Matthew" > wrote:

>
>A sing-along for you.
>http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/4everyoungrs.htm

YUCK!!! OLD pizza face, Rod Stewart? GAG ME!!

Here's the real one:
http://bobdylan.com/songs/forever.html

I always thought this might be a prayer written for his children.
--
zk

[Roger Zoul]

Maggie wrote:
:: Jeff Starr wrote:
::: Although, you could try standing on your head, in the corner of your
::: office, for , let's say, maybe 3-4 hours. That should do it;-)
:::
::: Life is Good!
::: Jeff
::
:: I WUV YOU TOO JEFFY. :-)
::
:: Maggie and Jeffy sitting in a tree.
::
:: Bob Dylan is right. But I think he was referring to mentally
:: younger.
::
::
:: I could not be mentally younger if I tried. Mentally I will always be
:: 18. I'm riding my bike every day with my cyclocomputer thing on it.
:: I am waiting for the hands of time to turn back. Or to drop dead.
:: Whichever comes first.

I disagree. You're mentally old. Older than 50, by a lot.

::
:: Every day I feel myself getting younger. Soon I will be younger than
:: my kids.

No, you will not be. However, you could be getting fitter, but I somehow
doubt it.

::
:: And I can take alot of verbal abuse. So bring it on. I'm not a
:: delicate flower. More of a man eating plant.
::

You're asking for it, so get ready. Might as well take frustrations out on
old Mags, with the bags...

[Maggie]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> Here's the real one:
> http://bobdylan.com/songs/forever.html
> zk

Personally I like the version by Joan Baez. He probably liked it better
too. ;-)

http://www.bobdylanroots.com/baez.html

Maggie

[Rich]

Maggie wrote:

> I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
> Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.

No, but they are in just as good of shape.

> How does one enter this secret society?

Exercise. By riding your bike.

> When do I get my funny hat?

Any bicycle store. It's called a helmet.

Rich

[Maggie]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> Sadly, you don't understand at all. I'm 47, I'm not 18. I compete only
> with myself at age 47. I simply don't place the type of limits on me that
> you place on you. You seem to think that just because you're 50, you can't
> do some things. So it is said, so it is.

Well I can't do a hell of alot of things that I did when I was 18.
Thats just a fact jack. Nor would I want to do some of the things I
did when I was 18.
;-) And that is a definate fact. I think I am in good shape for a
woman my age. At least among my friends. For whatever that is worth.

Maggie. Young at heart.

[Ohio Jerry]

"Maggie" > wrote in message
ups.com...


> Every day I feel myself getting younger. Soon I will be younger than
> my kids.
>
Maggie, your kids will soon be older than you because young people
get old faster than older people do.

When I was 22 and my kid was 1, i was 22 times older than him.
Today, at 60, I'm only about 1.5 times his age.
I expect him to pass me up in a few years.

Jerry

[Maggie]

Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> You're asking for it, so get ready. Might as well take frustrations out on
> old Mags, with the bags...

You forgot the "Sags" along with the bags... ;-)

Maggie.

[rdclark]

Ohio Jerry wrote:
> "Maggie" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>
> > Every day I feel myself getting younger. Soon I will be younger than
> > my kids.
> >
> Maggie, your kids will soon be older than you because young people
> get old faster than older people do.
>
> When I was 22 and my kid was 1, i was 22 times older than him.
> Today, at 60, I'm only about 1.5 times his age.
> I expect him to pass me up in a few years.

Those of us caring for parents with Alzheimer's or senile dementia know
that this far too real to be funny.

RichC

[Bill Baka]

Maggie wrote:
> I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
> I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
> society.
>
> Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
>
> I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
> been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
> the group yet.
>
> How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
> sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
>
> Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down, holding
> a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take the
> secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".
>
> Maggie.
>
You probably have to have a road bike that costs over $500 and be able
to ride a century a day at over 25 MPH. Way too many hot shots on here
to be called .misc anymore. Maybe over on the .soc group people might be
sociable. I am keeping a low profile these days and just riding at
anywhere from 8 mph (total goof off) to 20 mph (about my max). If I take
10 hours to do a century does it count?
This is a strange group, centered on bikes, but strange anyway.
Bill Baka

[Roger Zoul]

Maggie wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Sadly, you don't understand at all. I'm 47, I'm not 18. I compete
::: only with myself at age 47. I simply don't place the type of
::: limits on me that you place on you. You seem to think that just
::: because you're 50, you can't do some things. So it is said, so it
::: is.
::
:: Well I can't do a hell of alot of things that I did when I was 18.

What can't you do now that you could do at 18?

:: Thats just a fact jack.

It's in your mind.

Nor would I want to do some of the things I
:: did when I was 18.
:: ;-) And that is a definate fact. I think I am in good shape for a
:: woman my age. At least among my friends. For whatever that is worth.

You don't ask much, though, since you've given up.

::
:: Maggie. Young at heart.

[Maggie]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> What can't you do now that you could do at 18?
>

Get Pregnant and go to the prom. Or go to the prom and get pregnant.
Whichever comes first.

Seriously though, I have had some injuries during my life that would
keep me from doing alot of the things I did as a teenager. If I tried
to keep up with the ballet classes I was involved with before I ripped
a tendon in my ankle, I would be on crutches for a year. Or maybe the
rest of my life. This is fact.

Maggie.

[Peter Cole]

Maggie wrote:
> I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
> I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
> society.
>
> Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
>
> I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
> been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
> the group yet.
>
> How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
> sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
>
> Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down, holding
> a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take the
> secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".

I think it's about Boomers, we've re-written the book on everything, why
should aging be any different.

Most of what chalked up to aging is really lifestyle disease. Aging is
real, but most of the ideas about it are based on ignorance. There is a
cultural disconnect as people assume that affluence means comfort and
luxury. As it turns out, you're much better off adopting the diet and
transportation habit of the third world -- while maintaining the medical
and nutritional advantages of the first world, of course.

To most Americans, this is unacceptable, self-induced discomfort is a
non-starter, the irony is that it's really pay me now or later and the
deferred bill is much heavier. By the time health consciousness begins
to dawn, it's a catch-up game, almost always too little, too late.

You can mock people for underestimating the toll of age, but what's the
down-side (assuming you're even partially right)? Compare that to the
down-side of overestimating. In any case, how do you know what your
limits are until you try to find them? That's a truth for any age.

In any case, I always wonder about motive when somebody is trying to
sell me on being old.

[Roger Zoul]

Maggie wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: What can't you do now that you could do at 18?
:::
::
:: Get Pregnant and go to the prom. Or go to the prom and get pregnant.
:: Whichever comes first.

You can go to the prom. What does getting pregnant have to do with this?

::
:: Seriously though, I have had some injuries during my life that would
:: keep me from doing alot of the things I did as a teenager. If I tried
:: to keep up with the ballet classes I was involved with before I
:: ripped a tendon in my ankle, I would be on crutches for a year. Or
:: maybe the rest of my life. This is fact.

That is not a fact, it is just in your mind. See the thread/rant "social
rider" by psycholist. Perhaps if you were missing a leg, you couldn't do
ballet. But even now, you can enjoy ballet, but you may never be any good
at it, but you can enjoy it. Also, you probably wouldn't have been any good
at it even at 18.

Keep telling your self that you can't do a damn thing and you're do just
that.

::
:: Maggie.

[Tom Keats]

In article . com>,
"Maggie" > writes:

> I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Almost, but not quite. We're Classics.

A classic anything is classic /despite/ age, not because of it.

Don't worry; you're a classic, too.

As for that party-all-night stuff from our youth -- as I recall,
the next day at work would be sheer living hell. Well, it was
no picnic, anyways. I'm happy to have outgrown that.


cheers, & Monday I'll Have Friday on my Mind,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Roger Zoul]

Bill Baka wrote:
:: Maggie wrote:
::: I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows
::: old. I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
::: society.
:::
::: Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
:::
::: I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath,
::: or been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be
::: part of the group yet.
:::
::: How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored
::: or sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
:::
::: Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down,
::: holding a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs
::: if I take the secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless,
::: cyclists".
:::
::: Maggie.
:::
:: You probably have to have a road bike that costs over $500 and be
:: able to ride a century a day at over 25 MPH. Way too many hot shots
:: on here to be called .misc anymore. Maybe over on the .soc group
:: people might be sociable. I am keeping a low profile these days and
:: just riding at anywhere from 8 mph (total goof off) to 20 mph (about
:: my max). If I take 10 hours to do a century does it count?
:: This is a strange group, centered on bikes, but strange anyway.
:: Bill Baka

There's nothing at all strange about this group. It reflects the "group" of
people who hang out here lately. Certainly, not all people here complete a
century in 4.5 hours or under, but so what? If I could, I certainly would.
And I have it as a goal to approach that time for a century. I may never
make it, but it can't hurt to try.

[GaryG]

"Maggie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
> I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
> society.
>
> Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
>
> I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
> been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
> the group yet.
>
> How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
> sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
>
> Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down, holding
> a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take the
> secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".
>
> Maggie.

Would you like some cheese with that whine, Maggie?

FWIW, many of us enjoy the significant health benefits of cycling and take
pride in our accomplishments and strength. Cycling is a great lifestyle -
it's an excellent calorie burner, it's low impact, it's great for
cardiovascular health, it involves high tech equipment, and there's speed.
What's not to like?

Nobody's saying they're the same as they were when they were 18, but many of
us are taking on challenges that we could not have conceived of when we were
younger. For instance, at the end of June, I'll be off to Colorado for the
Bicycle Tour of Colorado (http://www.bicycletourcolorado.com/) - 450 miles
of riding in 7 days, with 28,000 feet of climbing (including two crossings
of the Continental Divide, with one pass higher than 12,000 feet). A week
after that, I'll be riding the "Death Ride" (www.deathride.com) down near
Lake Tahoe in the California Sierras - 125 miles, with 16,000 feet of
climbing, in one day.
I'm 52. Could I have done rides like this when I was 18? Probably...I was
pretty fit back then. But, without specific training, it would have been
very tough. And I most definitely could *not* have done those rides in my
early 30's (when I was an overweight smoker), or in my early 40's when I
first got back into cycling.

So, yes, we celebrate our strength. We take joy in our healthy lifestyles.
We love to ride hard, climb big mountains, and get up the next day to do it
all over again. I ride with many others in their 50's, 60's, and 70's (men
and women), who feel the same.

You, on the other hand, seem to celebrate and embrace your impending
decrepitude, and disparage those of us who take pride in our
accomplishments...what's up with that? Is that a Jersey thing?

--
~_-*
....G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

[jj]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:50:59 -0700, "GaryG" >
wrote:

>For instance, at the end of June, I'll be off to Colorado for the
>Bicycle Tour of Colorado (http://www.bicycletourcolorado.com/) - 450 miles
>of riding in 7 days, with 28,000 feet of climbing (including two crossings
>of the Continental Divide, with one pass higher than 12,000 feet). A week
>after that, I'll be riding the "Death Ride" (www.deathride.com) down near
>Lake Tahoe in the California Sierras - 125 miles, with 16,000 feet of
>climbing, in one day.
>I'm 52. Could I have done rides like this when I was 18? Probably...I was
>pretty fit back then. But, without specific training, it would have been
>very tough. And I most definitely could *not* have done those rides in my
>early 30's (when I was an overweight smoker), or in my early 40's when I
>first got back into cycling.

Hi Gary. I wonder if you would mind going over your development from age 40
when you got back into cycling?

IOW, did you just go into it whole hog and start riding consistently at age
40?

How long from the time that you started riding consistently did it take for
you to get to the point where you can contemplate the kind of rides you're
doing now?

I've heard that it takes about 7-8 years of consistent riding to get up to
that kind of level. I'm hoping to do it in 4-5, so I'm looking for some
that have gone through the experience.

In my case it took about 9 months of consistent riding two years ago when I
started (and wasn't in good shape) to get to the point where I could
consistently turn in 80-100 mile weeks on the flats, however I was still
riding quite slowly (12-14mph).

In the last 12 months, still very consistently riding, I've gained some
speed and have begun to ride some easy hills. I'm now riding about 70-80
mile weeks at about 16-20mph (I cut my distance to work on speed this
spring).

Would you expect that even if I continue to be consistent that I'll be at a
plateau for a year or two, or would you expect that the progress will
continue to be relatively the same degree? (based on your experiences)

Thanks!

jj

[max]

In article >,
Peter Cole > wrote:


> Most of what chalked up to aging is really lifestyle disease. Aging is
> real, but most of the ideas about it are based on ignorance. There is a
> cultural disconnect as people assume that affluence means comfort and
> luxury. As it turns out, you're much better off adopting the diet and
> transportation habit of the third world -- while maintaining the medical
> and nutritional advantages of the first world, of course.

I gave you crap in another thread (or at least thought about it) and
find myself compelled to reconsider, because I agree with what you wrote
wholly and without qualification.

Our definitions of comfort and luxury are mired in ante-industrilization
thinking. The correct view, is, of course, that for the majority of the
industrialized world, exercise and physicality is a mitzvah to be
treasured and not avoided.

I see it in my cohort: people of my age band, +/- 5~10 years, are
bifurcating into two ever divergent classes, the single greatest
predictor of class membership being their physicality, with diet being a
not-so-close second.

Thus, i learned the unicycle last august, at the age of 45. (which is
what i'm going to do this afternoon for a couple of hours, before i hop
on my road bike to go to work. :-)


..max

[Maggie]

GaryG wrote:
> You, on the other hand, seem to celebrate and embrace your impending
> decrepitude, and disparage those of us who take pride in our
> accomplishments...what's up with that? Is that a Jersey thing?
>

I'm laughing out loud. No, I don't think it is a Jersey thing. I think
it's a Maggie thing. I am far from embracing my impending decrepitude.
And I have told many of you over and over how I admire your
accomplishments. Don't make me look back at my previous posts now.


I guess I am trying to come to terms with my age. Who the hell knows.
You think I have a clue?? I am two french fries short of a happy
meal.

I'm riding my bike and I am trying. Do I get any points for that?
Believe me, I am not sitting in my rocking chair waiting to die. I am
in this office playing on the internet too much. That might be a
problem. But I am trying to stay in shape as I gracefully age into a
sexy old broad with attitude.

I want to be Bette Davis. That was a wicked woman with attitude.

"She got....Bette Davis eyes".

Maggie

[GaryG]

"jj" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:50:59 -0700, "GaryG" >
> wrote:
>
> >For instance, at the end of June, I'll be off to Colorado for the
> >Bicycle Tour of Colorado (http://www.bicycletourcolorado.com/) - 450
miles
> >of riding in 7 days, with 28,000 feet of climbing (including two
crossings
> >of the Continental Divide, with one pass higher than 12,000 feet). A
week
> >after that, I'll be riding the "Death Ride" (www.deathride.com) down near
> >Lake Tahoe in the California Sierras - 125 miles, with 16,000 feet of
> >climbing, in one day.
> >I'm 52. Could I have done rides like this when I was 18? Probably...I
was
> >pretty fit back then. But, without specific training, it would have been
> >very tough. And I most definitely could *not* have done those rides in
my
> >early 30's (when I was an overweight smoker), or in my early 40's when I
> >first got back into cycling.
>
> Hi Gary. I wonder if you would mind going over your development from age
40
> when you got back into cycling?
>
> IOW, did you just go into it whole hog and start riding consistently at
age
> 40?
>
> How long from the time that you started riding consistently did it take
for
> you to get to the point where you can contemplate the kind of rides you're
> doing now?
>
> I've heard that it takes about 7-8 years of consistent riding to get up to
> that kind of level. I'm hoping to do it in 4-5, so I'm looking for some
> that have gone through the experience.
>
> In my case it took about 9 months of consistent riding two years ago when
I
> started (and wasn't in good shape) to get to the point where I could
> consistently turn in 80-100 mile weeks on the flats, however I was still
> riding quite slowly (12-14mph).
>
> In the last 12 months, still very consistently riding, I've gained some
> speed and have begun to ride some easy hills. I'm now riding about 70-80
> mile weeks at about 16-20mph (I cut my distance to work on speed this
> spring).
>
> Would you expect that even if I continue to be consistent that I'll be at
a
> plateau for a year or two, or would you expect that the progress will
> continue to be relatively the same degree? (based on your experiences)
>
> Thanks!
>
> jj

Kind of hard to say. I initially got into cycling as a way of losing some
weight and quitting cigarettes (I'd been clean for 5 years, then got hooked
in a moment of weakness in my late 30's that lasted for a year until I got
the bike). I was mostly a mountain biker for the first 4 or 5 years. During
that time, I increased the length and difficulty of the rides I was
doing...nothing structured, just looking for bigger challenges as my fitness
improved.

With road biking, it's been similar. Each year I try to look for a few
challenges to motivate my training. Typically, this will include some
centuries, one week-long tour, and a few races.

As for questions about rate of improvement - I don't think it will take you
7-8 years if you're consistent and at all focused (which it sounds you are).
I think 3-5 years is probably more realistic. Just be aware that the gains
you'll see with each passing year will be smaller (damnit!).

A few things you might want to concentrate on:

1) Intervals
Structured, or not, these will make you stronger. I sometimes do structured
intervals if preparing for something like a time trial, but most of my
riding is unstructured hill climbing intervals. I try to get in at least 2
"hard" rides each week (but, never back-to-back days). If you think you
might have any cardiovascular issues, get checked out beforehand, and be
aware of any symptoms so you don't end up dying on your bike (ala the late
cycling author Dr. Edmund Burke).

2) Weight
If you ride hills, losing weight can help a lot. In the last couple of
years I've really focused on this aspect, and I'm now back down to near what
I weighed in high school (6' 168 lbs). My last trip to Colorado in '03 I
weighed 183, so I'm really looking forward to this year's ride.

3) Pacelines/Groups
If you live where it's flat, you can hook up with a group and enjoy
pacelining. It's a bit dangerous, but rolling along barely breaking a sweat
at 25 mph in a well-oiled paceline is one of the true joys of cycling (and
will give you much more appreciation of what's going on in bike races you
see on TV).

4) Volume
70-80 miles per week is OK, especially if you're riding with intensity.
But, I've found my greatest gains when I bump up the training volume to
around 150 miles per week.

You might also want to get some cycling training books (Father's Day is just
around the corner). Carmichael (Lance's coach) is OK, but I find his advice
kind of "generic". Joel Friel is good if you're really into highly
structured training plans (I appreciate his perspective, but just can't
force myself to be that structured). My favorite book is "The Complete Book
of Long-Distance Cycling", by the late Edmund Burke
http://tinyurl.com/4o7l5 - well-written, oriented more towards centuries,
doubles and tours than racing, and covers most every aspect (equipment,
training, physiology, nutrition, etc.).

Finally - keep those pedals turning, and stay away from the cagers!

--
~_-*
....G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

[Maggie]

max wrote:
> Our definitions of comfort and luxury are mired in ante-industrilization
> thinking. The correct view, is, of course, that for the majority of the
> industrialized world, exercise and physicality is a mitzvah to be
> treasured and not avoided.
>
> I see it in my cohort: people of my age band, +/- 5~10 years, are
> bifurcating into two ever divergent classes, the single greatest
> predictor of class membership being their physicality, with diet being a
> not-so-close second.
>
> Thus, i learned the unicycle last august, at the age of 45. (which is
> what i'm going to do this afternoon for a couple of hours, before i hop
> on my road bike to go to work. :-)

> .max

You sure use alot of big words. ;-) I especially enjoyed the word
bifurcating...why not just write divide instead?
Never use a 10 dollar word when a dollar word will do. ;-) That is
what I was taught anyway.
Maggie

[max]

"Maggie" > wrote:

> You sure use alot of big words. ;-) I especially enjoyed the word
> bifurcating...why not just write divide instead?
> Never use a 10 dollar word when a dollar word will do. ;-) That is
> what I was taught anyway.

i work with a lot of brainiacs. it rubs off.

..max

[Mike Latondresse]

"Maggie" > wrote in
oups.com:

> I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows
> old. I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this
> secret society.
>
SNIP

Man, it must really be a slow day at work!

[jj]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:47:47 -0700, "GaryG" >
wrote:

>> I've heard that it takes about 7-8 years of consistent riding to get up to
>> that kind of level. I'm hoping to do it in 4-5, so I'm looking for some
>> that have gone through the experience.
>>
>> In my case it took about 9 months of consistent riding two years ago when
>I
>> started (and wasn't in good shape) to get to the point where I could
>> consistently turn in 80-100 mile weeks on the flats, however I was still
>> riding quite slowly (12-14mph).
>>
>> In the last 12 months, still very consistently riding, I've gained some
>> speed and have begun to ride some easy hills. I'm now riding about 70-80
>> mile weeks at about 16-20mph (I cut my distance to work on speed this
>> spring).
>>
>> Would you expect that even if I continue to be consistent that I'll be at
>> a plateau for a year or two, or would you expect that the progress will
>> continue to be relatively the same degree? (based on your experiences)
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> jj
>
>Kind of hard to say. I initially got into cycling as a way of losing some
>weight and quitting cigarettes (I'd been clean for 5 years, then got hooked
>in a moment of weakness in my late 30's that lasted for a year until I got
>the bike). I was mostly a mountain biker for the first 4 or 5 years. During
>that time, I increased the length and difficulty of the rides I was
>doing...nothing structured, just looking for bigger challenges as my fitness
>improved.

When you say mountain biker, do you mean riding single track, or do you
mean riding jeep trails and soforth?

>With road biking, it's been similar. Each year I try to look for a few
>challenges to motivate my training. Typically, this will include some
>centuries, one week-long tour, and a few races.
>
>As for questions about rate of improvement - I don't think it will take you
>7-8 years if you're consistent and at all focused (which it sounds you are).
>I think 3-5 years is probably more realistic. Just be aware that the gains
>you'll see with each passing year will be smaller (damnit!).

So at your current level of fitness, before tackling something like those
two rides (which I'll look up shortly) you'd want to have a season or two
of 150 miles/week (say 8months) and be able to ride at about a 25mph pace
on the flats, solo? (for instance?)

Or do you focus on doing lots and lots of climbing?

My plan is that I want my speed to be up to a certain level (approx 20mph
avg over 2 hours), and next year I plan to start including some fairly long
climbs. Right now I'm riding the foothills which is becoming
counter-productive, because the climbs are not long enough and I'm spending
too much time riding down the resultant hills, meaning my speed starts
decaying over-all.

>A few things you might want to concentrate on:
>
>1) Intervals
>Structured, or not, these will make you stronger. I sometimes do structured
>intervals if preparing for something like a time trial, but most of my
>riding is unstructured hill climbing intervals. I try to get in at least 2
>"hard" rides each week (but, never back-to-back days). If you think you
>might have any cardiovascular issues, get checked out beforehand, and be
>aware of any symptoms so you don't end up dying on your bike (ala the late
>cycling author Dr. Edmund Burke).

For intervals, I'm doing repeat two mile loops on lightly rolling hills,
with about 1 minute rest. I do about 12 miles (or about 6 repeats). Riding
as hard as I can (meaning about 20-25mph) after such a workout, I'm ready
to go home, but I'm not wiped out. I've been doing this daily since the end
of February. I plan to keep doing this route for the next four weeks,
upping my speed and increasing the number of laps. Since I don't really
consider this a 'hard day', I do this same workout every day. I'm not
really able to ride what I'd consider a hard day right now, given my
fitness and the routes available. I wish I had a nice 50 mile nearly flat
route, like a rail to trail route that I could just get on and go and not
worry about traffic or naviagating.

>2) Weight
>If you ride hills, losing weight can help a lot. In the last couple of
>years I've really focused on this aspect, and I'm now back down to near what
>I weighed in high school (6' 168 lbs). My last trip to Colorado in '03 I
>weighed 183, so I'm really looking forward to this year's ride.

Yeah, I still have about 30-40lbs I want to lose. Trouble is there's not a
lot of good riding around here at my level. I'm not good enough to go up
and ride on the Blue Ridge Parkway yet (imo), and therefore I'm stuck in
the foothills in a relatively hilly town with a lot of traffic. (the
traffic is the big problem for me. This was a pretty good place to ride
back in the 70s when the traffic was much, much lighter).

>3) Pacelines/Groups
>If you live where it's flat, you can hook up with a group and enjoy
>pacelining. It's a bit dangerous, but rolling along barely breaking a sweat
>at 25 mph in a well-oiled paceline is one of the true joys of cycling (and
>will give you much more appreciation of what's going on in bike races you
>see on TV).

Unfortunately there's not a cycling club or much group riding here. The
University team does their own little group rides of about 2-4 guys, but
I'm not at the level where I could hang with them yet.

>4) Volume
>70-80 miles per week is OK, especially if you're riding with intensity.
>But, I've found my greatest gains when I bump up the training volume to
>around 150 miles per week.

Noted. I went out and scouted a route north of here that has a nice 25 mile
lightly rolling hill loop, but I still need to find a place to park. When
everything is equal, i.e. I have a good route, the natural distance/time I
ride is right around 160miles per week at about 15mph avg. I can do this
week after week, but I have to travel to my brothers to have a route that's
adaptable to this. (it's mostly flat).

>You might also want to get some cycling training books (Father's Day is just
>around the corner). Carmichael (Lance's coach) is OK, but I find his advice
>kind of "generic". Joel Friel is good if you're really into highly
>structured training plans (I appreciate his perspective, but just can't
>force myself to be that structured). My favorite book is "The Complete Book
>of Long-Distance Cycling", by the late Edmund Burke
>http://tinyurl.com/4o7l5 - well-written, oriented more towards centuries,
>doubles and tours than racing, and covers most every aspect (equipment,
>training, physiology, nutrition, etc.).

I'll look into Burke's book, but I'm not really into riding someone else's
"schedule". I generally have two things going for me. I'm very consistent
and I try to ride with intensity and push it as much as possible. So far
that's taken me far beyond what I thought I'd ever be able to do.

I remember riding by a little foothill about a year and a half ago and I
tried to ride up it and ended up having to get off my bike and walk the
durn thing. Now I ride right up it without much trouble as part of my loop.
I really was convinced that I'd never be able to ride any of the hills
around here! <g>

>Finally - keep those pedals turning, and stay away from the cagers!

Yep, and yep. Thanks, and good luck on your ride. I'm sure you'll keep a
journal and I'll be looking forward to reading it!

jj

[[email protected]]

On 31 May 2005 05:48:21 -0700, "Maggie" >
wrote:

>I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
>I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
>society.
>
>Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
>
>I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
>been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
>the group yet.
>
>How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
>sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
>
>Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down, holding
>a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take the
>secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".
>
>Maggie.

Everybody gets older.

Not everybody agonises about it at great *tedious* length in public.

Do you get it, you friggin' weirdo?

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 31 May 2005 16:56:25 GMT,
. net>, max
> wrote:

>"Maggie" > wrote:
>
>> You sure use alot of big words. ;-) I especially enjoyed the word
>> bifurcating...why not just write divide instead?
>> Never use a 10 dollar word when a dollar word will do. ;-) That is
>> what I was taught anyway.
>
>i work with a lot of brainiacs. it rubs off.

You may have to go to New Jersey for rehabilitation.
--
zk

[Maggie]

wrote:
> Not everybody agonises about it at great *tedious* length in public.
>
> Do you get it, you friggin' weirdo?


Who the hell is forcing you to read it? I am sure there are intelligent
people on this newsgroup who actually see my name and skip over it.
Do you know how to skip over the posts placed on a thread by friggin
weirdo's?? Get real.
No one is holding a gun to yours or anyones head to read my posts. Read
at your own risk. May contain tedious weirdo stuff.

Maggie

[Maggie]

Zoot Katz wrote:
>
> You may have to go to New Jersey for rehabilitation.
> --
> zk

Touche'

>From Maggie Mae

[Maggie]

Mike Latondresse wrote:
>
> Man, it must really be a slow day at work!

Owner is out for the day, I run the office. Do the math..

[Roger Zoul]

Maggie > wrote:
:> GaryG wrote:
:> > You, on the other hand, seem to celebrate and embrace your
:> > impending decrepitude, and disparage those of us who take pride in
:> > our accomplishments...what's up with that? Is that a Jersey thing?
:> >
:>
:> I'm laughing out loud. No, I don't think it is a Jersey thing. I
:> think it's a Maggie thing. I am far from embracing my impending
:> decrepitude. And I have told many of you over and over how I admire
:> your accomplishments. Don't make me look back at my previous posts
:> now.
:>
:>
:> I guess I am trying to come to terms with my age. Who the hell knows.
:> You think I have a clue?? I am two french fries short of a happy
:> meal.
:>
:> I'm riding my bike and I am trying. Do I get any points for that?
:> Believe me, I am not sitting in my rocking chair waiting to die. I
:> am in this office playing on the internet too much. That might be a
:> problem. But I am trying to stay in shape as I gracefully age into a
:> sexy old broad with attitude.
:>
:> I want to be Bette Davis. That was a wicked woman with attitude.
:>
:> "She got....Bette Davis eyes".
:>

It's good that you're riding, Mags.....but the problem I see is your
thinking....what in your head....and seriously, that's a much harder nut to
crack than getting fit enough to climb 16000 ft in a day!

[[email protected]]

On 31 May 2005 11:33:04 -0700, "Maggie" >
wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>> Not everybody agonises about it at great *tedious* length in public.
>>
>> Do you get it, you friggin' weirdo?
>
>
>Who the hell is forcing you to read it? I am sure there are intelligent
>people on this newsgroup who actually see my name and skip over it.
>Do you know how to skip over the posts placed on a thread by friggin
>weirdo's?? Get real.
>No one is holding a gun to yours or anyones head to read my posts. Read
>at your own risk. May contain tedious weirdo stuff.
>
>Maggie

Have it your own way.

Seeing as you seem to thrive on attention I'll <plonk> you for 30 days
on the offchance that you might grow less self-obsessed, eventually...

Don't leave it too long though: Time's running out!

[Maggie]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> :>
>
> It's good that you're riding, Mags.....but the problem I see is your
> thinking....what in your head....and seriously, that's a much harder nut to
> crack than getting fit enough to climb 16000 ft in a day!

I said I was riding, I never claimed to be sane. ;-)

Maggie

[GaryG]

"jj" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:47:47 -0700, "GaryG" >
> wrote:
>
> >> I've heard that it takes about 7-8 years of consistent riding to get up
to
> >> that kind of level. I'm hoping to do it in 4-5, so I'm looking for some
> >> that have gone through the experience.
> >>
> >> In my case it took about 9 months of consistent riding two years ago
when
> >I
> >> started (and wasn't in good shape) to get to the point where I could
> >> consistently turn in 80-100 mile weeks on the flats, however I was
still
> >> riding quite slowly (12-14mph).
> >>
> >> In the last 12 months, still very consistently riding, I've gained some
> >> speed and have begun to ride some easy hills. I'm now riding about
70-80
> >> mile weeks at about 16-20mph (I cut my distance to work on speed this
> >> spring).
> >>
> >> Would you expect that even if I continue to be consistent that I'll be
at
> >> a plateau for a year or two, or would you expect that the progress will
> >> continue to be relatively the same degree? (based on your experiences)
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> jj
> >
> >Kind of hard to say. I initially got into cycling as a way of losing
some
> >weight and quitting cigarettes (I'd been clean for 5 years, then got
hooked
> >in a moment of weakness in my late 30's that lasted for a year until I
got
> >the bike). I was mostly a mountain biker for the first 4 or 5 years.
During
> >that time, I increased the length and difficulty of the rides I was
> >doing...nothing structured, just looking for bigger challenges as my
fitness
> >improved.
>
> When you say mountain biker, do you mean riding single track, or do you
> mean riding jeep trails and soforth?

A mix of singletrack and jeep trails. When I started to get into longer
rides, it was more jeep trails and old Gold Rush wagon trails (it's hard to
find 30+ miles of singletrack).

>
> >With road biking, it's been similar. Each year I try to look for a few
> >challenges to motivate my training. Typically, this will include some
> >centuries, one week-long tour, and a few races.
> >
> >As for questions about rate of improvement - I don't think it will take
you
> >7-8 years if you're consistent and at all focused (which it sounds you
are).
> >I think 3-5 years is probably more realistic. Just be aware that the
gains
> >you'll see with each passing year will be smaller (damnit!).
>
> So at your current level of fitness, before tackling something like those
> two rides (which I'll look up shortly) you'd want to have a season or two
> of 150 miles/week (say 8months) and be able to ride at about a 25mph pace
> on the flats, solo? (for instance?)

No...I rode just over 4000 miles last year, for a weekly average for the
year of 76.6 miles. My weekly average typically goes down in the winter.
Depending on my goals, I start to crank up the training in February or
March. For the past 90 days, I've averaged 121.6 miles per week (but we've
had some weather that kept me off the bike). Early in the season I focus on
bike setup, and getting in some base miles, with some "natural" intensity
built in (hills, mostly). After a month or two of gradually increasing
distance, I start to focus on higher intensity - intervals, hill climbs,
etc. Now, I'm trying to find time for more long rides, so I can be ready
for the long days of climbing that are ahead.

As for 25 mph solo on the flats...no way. I won two flat 10K & 20K time
trials a week ago, with aero bars, and my speed was only 24.2 for the 10K,
and 23.8 for the 20K (but, we had a 15+mph headwind on the return leg).

>
> Or do you focus on doing lots and lots of climbing?

Depends on my goals. This year, I have a lot of climbing goals, so I'm
focused on that. If I had other goals (e.g., to complete a double, or to
win a time trial) the training would be different.

>
> My plan is that I want my speed to be up to a certain level (approx 20mph
> avg over 2 hours), and next year I plan to start including some fairly
long
> climbs. Right now I'm riding the foothills which is becoming
> counter-productive, because the climbs are not long enough and I'm
spending
> too much time riding down the resultant hills, meaning my speed starts
> decaying over-all.

That's a worthy goal...I've always subscribed to the theory that "your reach
should exceed your grasp". That said, 20 mph solo for 2 hours is pretty
damned tough, especially without aero bars.

>
> >A few things you might want to concentrate on:
> >
> >1) Intervals
> >Structured, or not, these will make you stronger. I sometimes do
structured
> >intervals if preparing for something like a time trial, but most of my
> >riding is unstructured hill climbing intervals. I try to get in at least
2
> >"hard" rides each week (but, never back-to-back days). If you think you
> >might have any cardiovascular issues, get checked out beforehand, and be
> >aware of any symptoms so you don't end up dying on your bike (ala the
late
> >cycling author Dr. Edmund Burke).
>
> For intervals, I'm doing repeat two mile loops on lightly rolling hills,
> with about 1 minute rest. I do about 12 miles (or about 6 repeats). Riding
> as hard as I can (meaning about 20-25mph) after such a workout, I'm ready
> to go home, but I'm not wiped out. I've been doing this daily since the
end
> of February. I plan to keep doing this route for the next four weeks,
> upping my speed and increasing the number of laps. Since I don't really
> consider this a 'hard day', I do this same workout every day. I'm not
> really able to ride what I'd consider a hard day right now, given my
> fitness and the routes available. I wish I had a nice 50 mile nearly flat
> route, like a rail to trail route that I could just get on and go and not
> worry about traffic or naviagating.

You may, in fact, be overtraining. When you go "as hard as you can", with 6
repeats, that represents about 25-30 minutes at red line. Doing those back
to back may not allow your body time to recover...I find my best days are
after a hard week, follwoed by a day or two off the bike.

You might also want to start doing longer intervals - rather than 1 minute
rest after 2 miles, try going hard for 4 miles, then rest for a couple of
minutes and do it again.

>
> >2) Weight
> >If you ride hills, losing weight can help a lot. In the last couple of
> >years I've really focused on this aspect, and I'm now back down to near
what
> >I weighed in high school (6' 168 lbs). My last trip to Colorado in '03 I
> >weighed 183, so I'm really looking forward to this year's ride.
>
> Yeah, I still have about 30-40lbs I want to lose. Trouble is there's not a
> lot of good riding around here at my level. I'm not good enough to go up
> and ride on the Blue Ridge Parkway yet (imo), and therefore I'm stuck in
> the foothills in a relatively hilly town with a lot of traffic. (the
> traffic is the big problem for me. This was a pretty good place to ride
> back in the 70s when the traffic was much, much lighter).
>
> >3) Pacelines/Groups
> >If you live where it's flat, you can hook up with a group and enjoy
> >pacelining. It's a bit dangerous, but rolling along barely breaking a
sweat
> >at 25 mph in a well-oiled paceline is one of the true joys of cycling
(and
> >will give you much more appreciation of what's going on in bike races you
> >see on TV).
>
> Unfortunately there's not a cycling club or much group riding here. The
> University team does their own little group rides of about 2-4 guys, but
> I'm not at the level where I could hang with them yet.
>
> >4) Volume
> >70-80 miles per week is OK, especially if you're riding with intensity.
> >But, I've found my greatest gains when I bump up the training volume to
> >around 150 miles per week.
>
> Noted. I went out and scouted a route north of here that has a nice 25
mile
> lightly rolling hill loop, but I still need to find a place to park. When
> everything is equal, i.e. I have a good route, the natural distance/time I
> ride is right around 160miles per week at about 15mph avg. I can do this
> week after week, but I have to travel to my brothers to have a route
that's
> adaptable to this. (it's mostly flat).

Is there a bike shop in town? They're usually a good source of info on
where it's safe to ride, and might be able to hook you up with others of
similar abilities. If you're doing 160 miles per week, even if somewhat
flat, that's pretty damned good.

>
> >You might also want to get some cycling training books (Father's Day is
just
> >around the corner). Carmichael (Lance's coach) is OK, but I find his
advice
> >kind of "generic". Joel Friel is good if you're really into highly
> >structured training plans (I appreciate his perspective, but just can't
> >force myself to be that structured). My favorite book is "The Complete
Book
> >of Long-Distance Cycling", by the late Edmund Burke
> >http://tinyurl.com/4o7l5 - well-written, oriented more towards centuries,
> >doubles and tours than racing, and covers most every aspect (equipment,
> >training, physiology, nutrition, etc.).
>
> I'll look into Burke's book, but I'm not really into riding someone else's
> "schedule". I generally have two things going for me. I'm very consistent
> and I try to ride with intensity and push it as much as possible. So far
> that's taken me far beyond what I thought I'd ever be able to do.
>
> I remember riding by a little foothill about a year and a half ago and I
> tried to ride up it and ended up having to get off my bike and walk the
> durn thing. Now I ride right up it without much trouble as part of my
loop.
> I really was convinced that I'd never be able to ride any of the hills
> around here! <g>
>
> >Finally - keep those pedals turning, and stay away from the cagers!
>
> Yep, and yep. Thanks, and good luck on your ride. I'm sure you'll keep a
> journal and I'll be looking forward to reading it!

Oh, I will...I like to take photos during my yearly "big" rides. In fact,
I'm getting a free trip to Colorado this year, because the ride organizers
liked my photos enough that they offered free registration/food/etc. in
exchange for permission to use them in their marketing materials (thus
fulfilling one of my goals to become a "professional cycling
photographer"!).

You can see some of my past tours here:

http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliStats/biketours/BTC2003/BTC0017.htm

http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliStats/biketours/MTLASSEN2004/RAML_001.htm

--
~_-*
....G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

>
> jj
>

[GaryG]

"Maggie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> GaryG wrote:
> > You, on the other hand, seem to celebrate and embrace your impending
> > decrepitude, and disparage those of us who take pride in our
> > accomplishments...what's up with that? Is that a Jersey thing?
> >
>
> I'm laughing out loud. No, I don't think it is a Jersey thing. I think
> it's a Maggie thing. I am far from embracing my impending decrepitude.
> And I have told many of you over and over how I admire your
> accomplishments. Don't make me look back at my previous posts now.
>
>
> I guess I am trying to come to terms with my age. Who the hell knows.
> You think I have a clue?? I am two french fries short of a happy
> meal.
>
> I'm riding my bike and I am trying. Do I get any points for that?

Sure...that's a good thing. Here's hoping that someday you'll enjoy
celebrating your strength and accomplishments, rather than focusing on your
age and the things you can no longer do.

GG

> Believe me, I am not sitting in my rocking chair waiting to die. I am
> in this office playing on the internet too much. That might be a
> problem. But I am trying to stay in shape as I gracefully age into a
> sexy old broad with attitude.
>
> I want to be Bette Davis. That was a wicked woman with attitude.
>
> "She got....Bette Davis eyes".
>
> Maggie
>

[Bob]

Maggie wrote:
> I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
> I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
> society.
>
> Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
>
> I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
> been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
> the group yet.
>
> How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
> sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
>
> Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down, holding
> a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take the
> secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".
>
> Maggie.

Since no one else has yet answered your questions I guess I must. No
blood oaths are required but you do need a sponsor to become an "ATC"
(Ageless Timeless Cyclist). It *is* a quasi-religious thing so
Applicants generally tithe 10% of their annual income- gross, not net-
to their Sponsors for the first three years. Those first three years
are a probationary period during which time Applicants are expected to
take more than their share of pulls, carry extra water so their Sponsor
may ride unburdened, and always volunteer to stand in the registration
lines for whatever rides the Sponsor chooses because of course the
Sponsor will be too busy with secret society duties to register on his
or her own. Only after Applicants complete their probationary period
will they be awarded their "cyclist crossing the finish line with arms
raised" pendant and bicycle chain bracelet(sorry, no funny hats- we try
to appear just like everyone else so we can remain unseen except by
other ATCs) and learn the answers to the questions you pose above.
If you ask very nicely I *may* agree to sponsor you. My willingness to
do so depends both on what 10% of your gross is and the quality of the
post-ride snacks you would provide. (Homemade chocolate chip cookies
would increase your chances.)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Maggie]

Bob wrote:
> Since no one else has yet answered your questions I guess I must.

Thank you. Now I fully understand rules for membership. I'll start
baking.

Maggie.

[Joe Canuck]

Maggie wrote:

> I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
> I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
> society.
>
> Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
>
> I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
> been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
> the group yet.
>
> How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
> sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
>
> Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down, holding
> a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take the
> secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".
>
> Maggie.
>

Most of the time I think and sometimes act like a 5 year old.

In reality I'm 50.

[Maggie]

Joe Canuck wrote:
>
> Most of the time I think and sometimes act like a 5 year old.
>
> In reality I'm 50.


Well my time for acting like a five year old is over for the day. It
is almost quitting time. I have to do eight hours worth of work in the
next hour. So long, farewell.....I'll be back tomorrow....just like a
fungus.

Maggie.

[catzz66]

As a rule, would you say that cyclists tend to take better care of
themselves when it comes to excessive eating, use of alcohol, etc.? The
bikers I know seem to be that way. It's not exactly a "party hearty"
crowd. Maybe that has something to do with how they feel about aging
and affects how they deal with it.

[jj]

On 31 May 2005 12:14:16 -0700, "Bob" > wrote:

>Maggie wrote:
>> I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
>> I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
>> society.
>>
>> Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
>>
>> I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
>> been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
>> the group yet.
>>
>> How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
>> sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
>>
>> Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down, holding
>> a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take the
>> secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".
>>
>> Maggie.
>
>Since no one else has yet answered your questions I guess I must. No
>blood oaths are required but you do need a sponsor to become an "ATC"
>(Ageless Timeless Cyclist). It *is* a quasi-religious thing so
>Applicants generally tithe 10% of their annual income- gross, not net-
>to their Sponsors for the first three years. Those first three years
>are a probationary period during which time Applicants are expected to
>take more than their share of pulls, carry extra water so their Sponsor
>may ride unburdened, and always volunteer to stand in the registration
>lines for whatever rides the Sponsor chooses because of course the
>Sponsor will be too busy with secret society duties to register on his
>or her own. Only after Applicants complete their probationary period
>will they be awarded their "cyclist crossing the finish line with arms
>raised" pendant and bicycle chain bracelet(sorry, no funny hats- we try
>to appear just like everyone else so we can remain unseen except by
>other ATCs) and learn the answers to the questions you pose above.
>If you ask very nicely I *may* agree to sponsor you. My willingness to
>do so depends both on what 10% of your gross is and the quality of the
>post-ride snacks you would provide. (Homemade chocolate chip cookies
>would increase your chances.)
>
>Regards,
>Bob Hunt

Bob, you forgot two rules. The applicant may not overtly or covertly seek
to be the center of attention for the probationary period, and they must
resist having and expressing any thoughts of running over, shooting,
ripping off of the bike and/or the pulling out of the hair of fellow
riders.

Oh and don't forget the wearing of excessive makeup, wearing colorful
lycra, hair to be worn in pigtails, along with bobby-sox white and tan
shoes and knee-high support stockings.

HTH,

jj

[Peter Cole]

max wrote:
>
> I see it in my cohort: people of my age band, +/- 5~10 years, are
> bifurcating into two ever divergent classes, the single greatest
> predictor of class membership being their physicality, with diet being a
> not-so-close second.

I'm a decade older than you and I see the same divide, only it's grown
deeper. I thought of the 40's as the beginning of the "use it or lose
it" period of life.


> Thus, i learned the unicycle last august, at the age of 45. (which is
> what i'm going to do this afternoon for a couple of hours, before i hop
> on my road bike to go to work. :-)

That's inspiring, I've thought about that, if only to relish the
absurdity of a 6'10" middle-aged unicyclist. You have my envy.

[John Thompson]

On 2005-05-31, Maggie > wrote:

> I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
> I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
> society.
>
> Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
>
> I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
> been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
> the group yet.
>
> How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
> sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
>
> Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down, holding
> a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take the
> secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".

Maggie... You're already there!

Ride on, sister...

--

John )

[Bob]

Maggie wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > Since no one else has yet answered your questions I guess I must.
>
> Thank you. Now I fully understand rules for membership. I'll start
> baking.
>
> Maggie.

Chocolate chip, no nuts. Email me your tax returns from the last three
years and we'll talk.
Regards,
Bob Hunt

[[email protected]]

psycholist wrote:
> "Maggie" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
> > I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
> > society.
> >
> > Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
> >
> > I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
> > been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
> > the group yet.
> >
> > How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
> > sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
> >
> > Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down, holding
> > a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take the
> > secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".
> >
> > Maggie.
>
> No Maggie, you're not really getting it. It's not that we're ageless and
> timeless. It's that we're just plain superior to others of our species.
> You don't qualify for membership unless your resting heart rate is below 40.
>
> --
> Bob C.

Is not KKK, Aryans and White supremacist used to claim they are plain
superior race than any race on earth? Why is that AMericans are so
osbessed
with race or color of skin?




>
> "Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

[GaryG]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> psycholist wrote:
> > "Maggie" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
> > > I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
> > > society.
> > >
> > > Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
> > >
> > > I guess I have not put on the funny hat, and taken the secret oath, or
> > > been privy to the secret handshake and sacred handbook to be part of
> > > the group yet.
> > >
> > > How does one enter this secret society? Do I need to be sponsored or
> > > sign an oath in blood? When do I get my funny hat?
> > >
> > > Do I go through the ritual on my bike while riding upside down,
holding
> > > a twinkie? Do I get a membership card that self destructs if I take
the
> > > secret outside of the society of "ageless, timeless, cyclists".
> > >
> > > Maggie.
> >
> > No Maggie, you're not really getting it. It's not that we're ageless
and
> > timeless. It's that we're just plain superior to others of our species.
> > You don't qualify for membership unless your resting heart rate is below
40.
> >
> > --
> > Bob C.
>
> Is not KKK, Aryans and White supremacist used to claim they are plain
> superior race than any race on earth? Why is that AMericans are so
> osbessed
> with race or color of skin?
>

Why RedCloud troll still have envy for White Penis Power, which troll can
never have? Too bad, too sad.

BTW, in reference to the previous post, look up "irony" in your dictionary.

GG

[Tim McTeague]

"Maggie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> max wrote:
>> Our definitions of comfort and luxury are mired in ante-industrilization
>> thinking. The correct view, is, of course, that for the majority of the
>> industrialized world, exercise and physicality is a mitzvah to be
>> treasured and not avoided.
>>
>> I see it in my cohort: people of my age band, +/- 5~10 years, are
>> bifurcating into two ever divergent classes, the single greatest
>> predictor of class membership being their physicality, with diet being a
>> not-so-close second.
>>
>> Thus, i learned the unicycle last august, at the age of 45. (which is
>> what i'm going to do this afternoon for a couple of hours, before i hop
>> on my road bike to go to work. :-)
>
>> .max
>
> You sure use alot of big words. ;-) I especially enjoyed the word
> bifurcating...why not just write divide instead?
> Never use a 10 dollar word when a dollar word will do. ;-) That is
> what I was taught anyway.
> Maggie
>

You seem to have a problem with anyone who uses words not generally heard on
prime time TV,or Oprah. You took me to task on one of my posts for a
similar transgression. What a dull world it would be if everyone just used
the simplest way of communicating. For my part, I just find it is fun for
me to speak, or type, in a more interesting way, using words that are not
commonly used. The downside is that there will always be some who feel
inferior and get put off when they come across anything they do not know.
That is one of life's pleasures, the realization that there is always
something more to learn. I'm know there are those who just want to impress
people with their vocabulary, but I think that increasing one's knowledge of
their language makes for a more entertaining time on this rock. When I
hear, or read, a word used that I don't know, I'll often look it up and get
a little kick by opening up my world just a tinny bit more. I would never
consider taking it's user to task.

Tim

[jj]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:03:54 -0700, "GaryG" >
wrote:

>Oh, I will...I like to take photos during my yearly "big" rides. In fact,
>I'm getting a free trip to Colorado this year, because the ride organizers
>liked my photos enough that they offered free registration/food/etc. in
>exchange for permission to use them in their marketing materials (thus
>fulfilling one of my goals to become a "professional cycling
>photographer"!).
>
>You can see some of my past tours here:
>
>http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliStats/biketours/BTC2003/BTC0017.htm
>
>http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliStats/biketours/MTLASSEN2004/RAML_001.htm
>
>--
> ~_-*
>...G/ \G
>http://www.CycliStats.com
>CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

Had a chance to go look at the two tours you mentioned. The 'Deathride'
(7/9) with its five peaks looks about on par with the first day of the
Everest Challenge that Terry Morse did back in Sept 04. Yours is 129 miles
with 15000 feet of climbing, whereas the Everest Challenge is a two day
ride 120 miles, 15,456 feet, and the second day being about 86 miles,
13,570 feet.

Are you planning to set up your bike with any special gearing? Do you agree
with the recommendation to try to ride at a cadence of 70-90rpm?

I think they normally suggest a 39/28 for the DeathRide, but that would be
at about a Cat 1-2 level, going by the gearing recommended for the EC.

Looks like you're kind of using the Tour of Colorado (6/26-7/2), with its
415miles and 32,000feet of climbing as a warm up? ;-) Nice pics of your '03
ride. The shot of the climb up Loveland pass looks simply amazing. Looks
like about a 10% grade or more.

Thanks for the tips and links!

jj

[Michael]

Maggie wrote:
>
> I just figured it all out. This is the NG where no one ever grows old.
> I finally get it. "18 till I die" is the motto for this secret
> society.
>
> Everyone is exactly the same as they were when they were 18.
(snip)
> Maggie.


Nice teaser, Maggie. You write them so well.

I made a three semester false start at college. Nine years and one Vietnam war
later I tried again. It was obvious to my classmates that I was not fresh out
of high school, and a few brave souls had the brass to ask how old I was. I
didn't tell; not once in four years. Instead I always answered, "Old enough to
know better and too young to care".

Eighteen years old? Ha! My knees make a snapping sound when I put them under
too much load; I have a touch of lower back discomfort; even though I hate
headgear of any kind, I wear a cap outdoors so that my bald spot doesn't get
sunburned; for eleven years I have needed glasses for reading; I can no longer
eat an entire 14-inch pizza without paying dearly with indigestion. I'm no
teenager but neither and I an old fart. I am old enough to know better and too
young to care.

Michael "ibuprofen" C.

[Michael]

Maggie wrote:
(snip)
> I want to be Bette Davis. That was a wicked woman with attitude.
>
> "She got....Bette Davis eyes".
>
> Maggie

Or try Kate Hepburn. Talk about attitude!

[Michael]

Bob wrote:
(snip)

Bob, do we know each other? Does "99125" or "B System" ring a bell?

Michael "Z2" C.

[GaryG]

"jj" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:03:54 -0700, "GaryG" >
> wrote:
>
> >Oh, I will...I like to take photos during my yearly "big" rides. In
fact,
> >I'm getting a free trip to Colorado this year, because the ride
organizers
> >liked my photos enough that they offered free registration/food/etc. in
> >exchange for permission to use them in their marketing materials (thus
> >fulfilling one of my goals to become a "professional cycling
> >photographer"!).
> >
> >You can see some of my past tours here:
> >
> >http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliStats/biketours/BTC2003/BTC0017.htm
> >
>
>http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliStats/biketours/MTLASSEN2004/RAML_001.ht
m
> >
> >--
> > ~_-*
> >...G/ \G
> >http://www.CycliStats.com
> >CycliStats - Software for Cyclists
>
> Had a chance to go look at the two tours you mentioned. The 'Deathride'
> (7/9) with its five peaks looks about on par with the first day of the
> Everest Challenge that Terry Morse did back in Sept 04. Yours is 129 miles
> with 15000 feet of climbing, whereas the Everest Challenge is a two day
> ride 120 miles, 15,456 feet, and the second day being about 86 miles,
> 13,570 feet.
>
> Are you planning to set up your bike with any special gearing? Do you
agree
> with the recommendation to try to ride at a cadence of 70-90rpm?

It's pretty hilly around here, and I'm not getting any younger, so my Trek
5200 is set up with a triple that gives me a 30-23 low gear.

>
> I think they normally suggest a 39/28 for the DeathRide, but that would be
> at about a Cat 1-2 level, going by the gearing recommended for the EC.
>
> Looks like you're kind of using the Tour of Colorado (6/26-7/2), with its
> 415miles and 32,000feet of climbing as a warm up? ;-) Nice pics of your
'03
> ride. The shot of the climb up Loveland pass looks simply amazing. Looks
> like about a 10% grade or more.

Yes...the Colorado ride will definitely help. Especially with the
elevations. After a week of riding at elevations up to 12,000 feet, the
Death Ride elevations (which top out around 8,700 feet) shouldn't be much of
an issue.

FWIW, most of the climbs in Colorado are well under 10%...it's the elevation
that hurts (even 5% is tough when you're above 11,000 feet).

GG

>
> Thanks for the tips and links!
>
> jj
>

[jj]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 06:41:00 -0700, "GaryG" >
wrote:

>
>Yes...the Colorado ride will definitely help. Especially with the
>elevations. After a week of riding at elevations up to 12,000 feet, the
>Death Ride elevations (which top out around 8,700 feet) shouldn't be much of
>an issue.
>
>FWIW, most of the climbs in Colorado are well under 10%...it's the elevation
>that hurts (even 5% is tough when you're above 11,000 feet).
>
>GG

Cool. The 'altitude' was something I suspected... I notice in your pictures
you're always looking fresh and smiling. If you had to characterize the
amount of 'suffering' you do on these epic (to me) rides, would you say
that you only suffer mildly, or do you feel you have developed strong pain
tolerance, or what. Obviously you never skip the base training and you ride
the right fitted bike and have learned to spin at 80rpm on climbes, but
thought it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the perceived
difficulty. The 42 mile climb up to Mt Lassen springs to mind. ;-)

TIA!

jj

[Roger Zoul]

Tim McTeague wrote:
:: You seem to have a problem with anyone who uses words not generally
:: heard on prime time TV,or Oprah. You took me to task on one of my
:: posts for a similar transgression. What a dull world it would be if
:: everyone just used the simplest way of communicating. For my part,
:: I just find it is fun for me to speak, or type, in a more
:: interesting way, using words that are not commonly used. The
:: downside is that there will always be some who feel inferior and get
:: put off when they come across anything they do not know. That is one
:: of life's pleasures, the realization that there is always something
:: more to learn. I'm know there are those who just want to impress
:: people with their vocabulary, but I think that increasing one's
:: knowledge of their language makes for a more entertaining time on
:: this rock. When I hear, or read, a word used that I don't know,
:: I'll often look it up and get a little kick by opening up my world
:: just a tinny bit more. I would never consider taking it's user to
:: task.

I agree. I keep dictionary.com open on my desktop so I can look up words I
don't know quickly.

[H M Leary]

In article >,
Zoot Katz > wrote:

> Tue, 31 May 2005 16:56:25 GMT,
> . net>, max
> > wrote:
>
> >"Maggie" > wrote:
> >
> >> You sure use alot of big words. ;-) I especially enjoyed the word
> >> bifurcating...why not just write divide instead?
> >> Never use a 10 dollar word when a dollar word will do. ;-) That is
> >> what I was taught anyway.
> >
> >i work with a lot of brainiacs. it rubs off.
>
> You may have to go to New Jersey for rehabilitation.

I would much rather go to Hornby Island, BC...!

....but you can't get there from here.

HAND

[Maggie]

Tim McTeague wrote:
> "Maggie" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > max wrote:
> >> Our definitions of comfort and luxury are mired in ante-industrilization
> >> thinking. The correct view, is, of course, that for the majority of the
> >> industrialized world, exercise and physicality is a mitzvah to be
> >> treasured and not avoided.
> >>
> >> I see it in my cohort: people of my age band, +/- 5~10 years, are
> >> bifurcating into two ever divergent classes, the single greatest
> >> predictor of class membership being their physicality, with diet being a
> >> not-so-close second.
> >>
> >> Thus, i learned the unicycle last august, at the age of 45. (which is
> >> what i'm going to do this afternoon for a couple of hours, before i hop
> >> on my road bike to go to work. :-)
> >
> >> .max
> >
> > You sure use alot of big words. ;-) I especially enjoyed the word
> > bifurcating...why not just write divide instead?
> > Never use a 10 dollar word when a dollar word will do. ;-) That is
> > what I was taught anyway.
> > Maggie
> >
>
> You seem to have a problem with anyone who uses words not generally heard on
> prime time TV,or Oprah. You took me to task on one of my posts for a
> similar transgression. What a dull world it would be if everyone just used
> the simplest way of communicating. For my part, I just find it is fun for
> me to speak, or type, in a more interesting way, using words that are not
> commonly used. The downside is that there will always be some who feel
> inferior and get put off when they come across anything they do not know.
> That is one of life's pleasures, the realization that there is always
> something more to learn. I'm know there are those who just want to impress
> people with their vocabulary, but I think that increasing one's knowledge of
> their language makes for a more entertaining time on this rock. When I
> hear, or read, a word used that I don't know, I'll often look it up and get
> a little kick by opening up my world just a tinny bit more. I would never
> consider taking it's user to task.
>
> Tim


Oh lighten up.

Maggie

[Leo Lichtman]

"Tim McTeague" wrote: (clip)increasing *one's* knowledge of *their*
language
and: (clip) just a *tinny* bit (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tim, I agree that colorful vocabulary can be a plus, but there is also
grammar and spelling. Yours are "colorful." :-)

[GaryG]

"jj" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 06:41:00 -0700, "GaryG" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Yes...the Colorado ride will definitely help. Especially with the
> >elevations. After a week of riding at elevations up to 12,000 feet, the
> >Death Ride elevations (which top out around 8,700 feet) shouldn't be much
of
> >an issue.
> >
> >FWIW, most of the climbs in Colorado are well under 10%...it's the
elevation
> >that hurts (even 5% is tough when you're above 11,000 feet).
> >
> >GG
>
> Cool. The 'altitude' was something I suspected... I notice in your
pictures
> you're always looking fresh and smiling. If you had to characterize the
> amount of 'suffering' you do on these epic (to me) rides, would you say
> that you only suffer mildly, or do you feel you have developed strong pain
> tolerance, or what. Obviously you never skip the base training and you
ride
> the right fitted bike and have learned to spin at 80rpm on climbes, but
> thought it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the perceived
> difficulty. The 42 mile climb up to Mt Lassen springs to mind. ;-)

I've always had a fairly high tolerance for pain and suffering, but most of
the credit goes to my ex-wife. After suffering through 15 years of her
****, pain means *nothing* to me ;-).

The truth is, I rarely get discouraged or negative while on the bike, but
climbing is tough work, and can be characterized as "suffering" at times.
Most of the time, I try to get into a mental and physical zone where I'm
just working just hard enough, but not really suffering. Training helps -
not only does it strengthen you, but it teaches you where your limits are to
avoid true suffering.

But sometimes **** happens, and there's no avoiding the pain.

If you're cramping, for instance, and there's still 2 miles of 7% climbing
to get to the top of an 11,000 foot pass...you're suffering (Slumgullion
Pass - '02). If you've got a headache, an upset stomach, tunnel vision, and
you're so out of breath due to riding above 13,000 feet that you have to
stop beside the road to take a drink...you're suffering (Mt. Evans - '03).
I try to train enough, and be smart about food and water intake, to avoid
those situations...but, the fact is, sometimes you do suffer. But, that's
also part of what makes bike riding great, and when you reach the top after
a hard climb, the rewards are worth it (IMO).

The 42 mile climb up Mt. Lassen is actually not so bad. I've done it a
couple of times without having to drop to the small chainring, because most
of the grades are pretty moderate. It's unrelenting, but not steep, and not
very high elevation. And when we enter the south entrance of the park, the
views are incredible which helps motivate the last few miles of climbing.
I'll be leading a group on that ride on the 11th of this month, only 1 week
after they're expecting the road to be cleared by the snowplows...there's
something really cool about riding between big snowbanks.

GG

>
> TIA!
>
> jj
>

[jj]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:30:52 -0700, "GaryG" >
wrote:

>"jj" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 06:41:00 -0700, "GaryG" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Yes...the Colorado ride will definitely help. Especially with the
>> >elevations. After a week of riding at elevations up to 12,000 feet, the
>> >Death Ride elevations (which top out around 8,700 feet) shouldn't be much
>> >an issue.
>> >
>> >FWIW, most of the climbs in Colorado are well under 10%...it's the elevation
>> >that hurts (even 5% is tough when you're above 11,000 feet).
>> >
>> >GG
>>
>> Cool. The 'altitude' was something I suspected... I notice in your pictures
>> you're always looking fresh and smiling. If you had to characterize the
>> amount of 'suffering' you do on these epic (to me) rides, would you say
>> that you only suffer mildly, or do you feel you have developed strong pain
>> tolerance, or what. Obviously you never skip the base training and you ride
>> the right fitted bike and have learned to spin at 80rpm on climbes, but
>> thought it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the perceived
>> difficulty. The 42 mile climb up to Mt Lassen springs to mind. ;-)
>
>I've always had a fairly high tolerance for pain and suffering, but most of
>the credit goes to my ex-wife. After suffering through 15 years of her
>****, pain means *nothing* to me ;-).
>
>The truth is, I rarely get discouraged or negative while on the bike, but
>climbing is tough work, and can be characterized as "suffering" at times.
>Most of the time, I try to get into a mental and physical zone where I'm
>just working just hard enough, but not really suffering. Training helps -
>not only does it strengthen you, but it teaches you where your limits are to
>avoid true suffering.
>
>But sometimes **** happens, and there's no avoiding the pain.
>
>If you're cramping, for instance, and there's still 2 miles of 7% climbing
>to get to the top of an 11,000 foot pass...you're suffering (Slumgullion
>Pass - '02). If you've got a headache, an upset stomach, tunnel vision, and
>you're so out of breath due to riding above 13,000 feet that you have to
>stop beside the road to take a drink...you're suffering (Mt. Evans - '03).
>I try to train enough, and be smart about food and water intake, to avoid
>those situations...but, the fact is, sometimes you do suffer. But, that's
>also part of what makes bike riding great, and when you reach the top after
>a hard climb, the rewards are worth it (IMO).
>
>The 42 mile climb up Mt. Lassen is actually not so bad. I've done it a
>couple of times without having to drop to the small chainring, because most
>of the grades are pretty moderate. It's unrelenting, but not steep, and not
>very high elevation. And when we enter the south entrance of the park, the
>views are incredible which helps motivate the last few miles of climbing.
>I'll be leading a group on that ride on the 11th of this month, only 1 week
>after they're expecting the road to be cleared by the snowplows...there's
>something really cool about riding between big snowbanks.
>
>GG

Your reply was even better than I imagined. Perfect descriptions. Nice!

One of the reasons I think I could get into this is these are the types of
running events I used to be attracted to - though not quite of that
calibre. I wasn't an ultra, or a Pike's Peak runner, but I did like running
hills.

Right now it's a challenge to ride repeats on a two mile 5-6% hill that I
ride. When everything is right I feel a type of good tightness and solidity
in the legs and waist, but it feels like I could sustain it. I am
breathing, but not gasping. Usually the 2nd and 3rd laps up it are easier
than the first. The other bit of a challenge is there's not really an easy
way to warm up. It goes up from a parking lot, and starts within 100yds. It
would be better if I could ride to it, or warm up for a few minutes, but
it's across an Interstate so I have to drive right now.

This fall I hope to ride a Century across the mountain - it's mostly hilly
- but foothilly. However you know how those steep little foothills with no
runups can be - at least to a beginner.

Did you often/ever drive any of these routes beforehand or did you just
trust that you were ready. IOW, how much recon do you do of new rides in
the car, if any?

jj

[Maggie]

Michael wrote:
> Maggie wrote:
> (snip)
> > I want to be Bette Davis. That was a wicked woman with attitude.
> >
> > "She got....Bette Davis eyes".
> >
> > Maggie
>
> Or try Kate Hepburn. Talk about attitude!

As long as a Spencer Tracy is included. ;-)

I Love Katherine Hepburn. She and Bette Davis and the stars of that
era....were infamous for that day and time. Ladies with attitude and
presence. It was class with a large dose of Sass.

Maggie

[GaryG]

"jj" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:30:52 -0700, "GaryG" >
> wrote:
>
> >"jj" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 06:41:00 -0700, "GaryG" >
> >> wrote:
>
> Your reply was even better than I imagined. Perfect descriptions. Nice!
>
> One of the reasons I think I could get into this is these are the types of
> running events I used to be attracted to - though not quite of that
> calibre. I wasn't an ultra, or a Pike's Peak runner, but I did like
running
> hills.
>
> Right now it's a challenge to ride repeats on a two mile 5-6% hill that I
> ride. When everything is right I feel a type of good tightness and
solidity
> in the legs and waist, but it feels like I could sustain it. I am
> breathing, but not gasping. Usually the 2nd and 3rd laps up it are easier
> than the first. The other bit of a challenge is there's not really an easy
> way to warm up. It goes up from a parking lot, and starts within 100yds.
It
> would be better if I could ride to it, or warm up for a few minutes, but
> it's across an Interstate so I have to drive right now.

Why can't you ride your bike across the Interstate to get to the start? I
pass over an interstate fairly often while riding around here.

>
> This fall I hope to ride a Century across the mountain - it's mostly hilly
> - but foothilly. However you know how those steep little foothills with no
> runups can be - at least to a beginner.
>
> Did you often/ever drive any of these routes beforehand or did you just
> trust that you were ready. IOW, how much recon do you do of new rides in
> the car, if any?

The only times I scout by car is to assess the road surface on some of the
back roads that I prefer (it's not always obvious from a map whether the
surface is paved, or improved gravel). And that's only when the road is too
far away to explore by bike. When I go on tours, I trust that the
organizers have done the scouting for me and just follow all the other bikes
on the road.

GG

> jj
>

[Fritz M]

Jeff Starr wrote:

> Lately, it seems this NG is all about Maggie, and her need to be the
> center of attention.

The rest of us participate in her discussions because the stuff she
writes is good or provocative or both.

RFM

[Maggie]

Fritz M wrote:
> Jeff Starr wrote:
>
> > Lately, it seems this NG is all about Maggie, and her need to be the
> > center of attention.
>
> The rest of us participate in her discussions because the stuff she
> writes is good or provocative or both.
>
> RFM

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh gee at least someone loves me.

Maggie

[Tim McTeague]

"Leo Lichtman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tim McTeague" wrote: (clip)increasing *one's* knowledge of *their*
> language
> and: (clip) just a *tinny* bit (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Tim, I agree that colorful vocabulary can be a plus, but there is also
> grammar and spelling. Yours are "colorful." :-)
>
You missed the part where I typed "I'm know" instead of "I know". Doh!
That's what I get for responding to this stuff early in the morning after
the dog walk and before the shower.

Tim

[Tim McTeague]

"Maggie" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Oh lighten up.
>
> Maggie
>

Whaa?? This from a person who freaks out just because a younger female
cyclist is in better shape than she? On the other hand, I guess I could
drop a pound or two from my waist. Or perhaps you are wanting me to buy
some expensive parts for my bike? Thanks for the concern and/or
encouragement.

Tim

[Leo Lichtman]

"Fritz M" wrote: The rest of us participate in her discussions because the
stuff she writes is good or provocative or both.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I participate because I think she's sexy. :-)

[jj]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:17:25 -0700, "GaryG" >
wrote:

>> would be better if I could ride to it, or warm up for a few minutes, but
>> it's across an Interstate so I have to drive right now.
>
>Why can't you ride your bike across the Interstate to get to the start? I
>pass over an interstate fairly often while riding around here.

Because 1) these guys in cars with flashing lights will arrest me and 2)
I'm a-skeerty cat! ;-D


>> This fall I hope to ride a Century across the mountain - it's mostly hilly
>> - but foothilly. However you know how those steep little foothills with no
>> runups can be - at least to a beginner.
>>
>> Did you often/ever drive any of these routes beforehand or did you just
>> trust that you were ready. IOW, how much recon do you do of new rides in
>> the car, if any?
>
>The only times I scout by car is to assess the road surface on some of the
>back roads that I prefer (it's not always obvious from a map whether the
>surface is paved, or improved gravel). And that's only when the road is too
>far away to explore by bike. When I go on tours, I trust that the
>organizers have done the scouting for me and just follow all the other bikes
>on the road.
>
>GG

OK, uh I guess I was thinking making sure there's not a vertical wall or
something unexpected in the middle of the race where I'd need grappling
hooks to get up. LOL

There's this one road that goes up to an apple orchard around here, and as
I get a little better I keep going back over there and looking at it and
trying to think if I could ride up it. Even after about 9 months, and
checking it every three months or so <g> it still looks like a 'wall'. I'm
stymied at how to try climbing it...looks even too steep to try slaloming.
There's no run up, it just start and goes up into the clouds (or so it
seems to me).

The local kids say it's only 9%, but I'm like 'durn, it's daunting going up
in a car...I wonder what 15% looks like!'. ;-D

jj

[Roger Zoul]

jj wrote:
:: On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:17:25 -0700, "GaryG" >
:: wrote:
::
:::: would be better if I could ride to it, or warm up for a few
:::: minutes, but it's across an Interstate so I have to drive right
:::: now.
:::
::: Why can't you ride your bike across the Interstate to get to the
::: start? I pass over an interstate fairly often while riding around
::: here.
::
:: Because 1) these guys in cars with flashing lights will arrest me
:: and 2) I'm a-skeerty cat! ;-D
::
::
:::: This fall I hope to ride a Century across the mountain - it's
:::: mostly hilly - but foothilly. However you know how those steep
:::: little foothills with no runups can be - at least to a beginner.
::::
:::: Did you often/ever drive any of these routes beforehand or did you
:::: just trust that you were ready. IOW, how much recon do you do of
:::: new rides in the car, if any?
:::
::: The only times I scout by car is to assess the road surface on some
::: of the back roads that I prefer (it's not always obvious from a map
::: whether the surface is paved, or improved gravel). And that's only
::: when the road is too far away to explore by bike. When I go on
::: tours, I trust that the organizers have done the scouting for me
::: and just follow all the other bikes on the road.
:::
::: GG
::
:: OK, uh I guess I was thinking making sure there's not a vertical
:: wall or something unexpected in the middle of the race where I'd
:: need grappling hooks to get up. LOL
::
:: There's this one road that goes up to an apple orchard around here,
:: and as I get a little better I keep going back over there and
:: looking at it and trying to think if I could ride up it. Even after
:: about 9 months, and checking it every three months or so <g> it
:: still looks like a 'wall'. I'm stymied at how to try climbing
:: it...looks even too steep to try slaloming. There's no run up, it
:: just start and goes up into the clouds (or so it seems to me).
::
:: The local kids say it's only 9%, but I'm like 'durn, it's daunting
:: going up in a car...I wonder what 15% looks like!'. ;-D

How long is that road, jj? If is ain't 15 mile or something, I say go for
it! :) Hit the granny gear if you need to, standing part way and sitting
part way, and taking it easy til you get it. I've found that I can get up
all the hills I seen that look really scary. Just make sure you haven't
done 80 or 90 miles already on your legs before you try. And if you have
problems, get off and talk it! The worse that can happen is that you'll
cramp up. Next time you get further up.

The steeper it is the easier it is to ride it standing, or parts of it.
IME, anyway.

[jj]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:29:07 -0400, "Roger Zoul" >
wrote:

>jj wrote:
>:: On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:17:25 -0700, "GaryG" >
>:: wrote:
>::
>:::: would be better if I could ride to it, or warm up for a few
>:::: minutes, but it's across an Interstate so I have to drive right
>:::: now.
>:::
>::: Why can't you ride your bike across the Interstate to get to the
>::: start? I pass over an interstate fairly often while riding around
>::: here.
>::
>:: Because 1) these guys in cars with flashing lights will arrest me
>:: and 2) I'm a-skeerty cat! ;-D
>::
>::
>:::: This fall I hope to ride a Century across the mountain - it's
>:::: mostly hilly - but foothilly. However you know how those steep
>:::: little foothills with no runups can be - at least to a beginner.
>::::
>:::: Did you often/ever drive any of these routes beforehand or did you
>:::: just trust that you were ready. IOW, how much recon do you do of
>:::: new rides in the car, if any?
>:::
>::: The only times I scout by car is to assess the road surface on some
>::: of the back roads that I prefer (it's not always obvious from a map
>::: whether the surface is paved, or improved gravel). And that's only
>::: when the road is too far away to explore by bike. When I go on
>::: tours, I trust that the organizers have done the scouting for me
>::: and just follow all the other bikes on the road.
>:::
>::: GG
>::
>:: OK, uh I guess I was thinking making sure there's not a vertical
>:: wall or something unexpected in the middle of the race where I'd
>:: need grappling hooks to get up. LOL
>::
>:: There's this one road that goes up to an apple orchard around here,
>:: and as I get a little better I keep going back over there and
>:: looking at it and trying to think if I could ride up it. Even after
>:: about 9 months, and checking it every three months or so <g> it
>:: still looks like a 'wall'. I'm stymied at how to try climbing
>:: it...looks even too steep to try slaloming. There's no run up, it
>:: just start and goes up into the clouds (or so it seems to me).
>::
>:: The local kids say it's only 9%, but I'm like 'durn, it's daunting
>:: going up in a car...I wonder what 15% looks like!'. ;-D
>
>How long is that road, jj? If is ain't 15 mile or something, I say go for
>it! :) Hit the granny gear if you need to, standing part way and sitting
>part way, and taking it easy til you get it. I've found that I can get up
>all the hills I seen that look really scary. Just make sure you haven't
>done 80 or 90 miles already on your legs before you try. And if you have
>problems, get off and talk it! The worse that can happen is that you'll
>cramp up. Next time you get further up.
>
>The steeper it is the easier it is to ride it standing, or parts of it.
>IME, anyway.

Thanks!! I may try that. I really had not developed my skills at pedalling
while standing, perhaps wrongly thinking that I was getting better base
development by getting all of the hills seated - not necessarily grinding
out the climb, but trying to get a higher cadence.

Man is that ever difficult to learn (climbing at high cadence). I keep
trying and trying to spin at 80 rpm on some of my shorter climbs and I just
can not get there. I mean I can get up the climbs without much difficulty,
but it's at 60-65 rpm.

The gear I'm in is just slightly too hard, and if I go to the next one,
it's much too easy and I nearly fall forward. None of my hills requries the
granny gear. Even the 2 mile ride at 5-6% I am in the 52x26, though I'm
going to try to work in the 42 front ring (I use a triple) - (my granny
would be 30x26) I don't think I can imagine using the granny - that 30x26
goes around awfully fast and easy.

But I will try your suggestion. It's mostly a matter of choosing just the
right gear. I'm such a doofus in this regard (picking the right gear and
doing >9% climbs) that it might have been in my interests to get the type
of shifter that allows changing gears when you're pedalling hard.
Hyper-glide I'm told.) That's why I keep asking dumb questions about 'what
gear combo did you use, lol).

The road is about 0.8 mile and only a few sections of it are >9%, however
it's got those transverse ripple ruts here and there and some loose gravel
at all the wrong places. <g>

My goal, though is to eventually ride this (to me) monster. The total climb
is a 6-7% grade for about 2 miles, and then it kicks up to over 10% for the
beginning where the orchard road turns off, and then a couple tricky places
where it suddenly has bad switchbacks where if you ride it in the wrong
place, I'm sure it's 15%. So it will require not only good climbing ability
and good bike handling, it will also require picking a near perfect line.
Certainly an amazing goal that I hope to do one day and amaze even the
local University riding club!

Concerning riding standing, I'm now at the point where I can climb standing
for about 2-3 minutes, then I run out of spring in my legs, temporarily.
Pretty crappy, huh. But I'm gonna keep trying, that's for sure. ;-)

Thanks again for the suggestions and encouragement!

jj

[GaryG]

"jj" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:29:07 -0400, "Roger Zoul" >
> wrote:
>
> >jj wrote:
> >:: On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:17:25 -0700, "GaryG" >
> >:: wrote:
> >::
> >:::: would be better if I could ride to it, or warm up for a few
> >:::: minutes, but it's across an Interstate so I have to drive right
> >:::: now.
> >:::
> >::: Why can't you ride your bike across the Interstate to get to the
> >::: start? I pass over an interstate fairly often while riding around
> >::: here.
> >::
> >:: Because 1) these guys in cars with flashing lights will arrest me
> >:: and 2) I'm a-skeerty cat! ;-D
> >::
> >::
> >:::: This fall I hope to ride a Century across the mountain - it's
> >:::: mostly hilly - but foothilly. However you know how those steep
> >:::: little foothills with no runups can be - at least to a beginner.
> >::::
> >:::: Did you often/ever drive any of these routes beforehand or did you
> >:::: just trust that you were ready. IOW, how much recon do you do of
> >:::: new rides in the car, if any?
> >:::
> >::: The only times I scout by car is to assess the road surface on some
> >::: of the back roads that I prefer (it's not always obvious from a map
> >::: whether the surface is paved, or improved gravel). And that's only
> >::: when the road is too far away to explore by bike. When I go on
> >::: tours, I trust that the organizers have done the scouting for me
> >::: and just follow all the other bikes on the road.
> >:::
> >::: GG
> >::
> >:: OK, uh I guess I was thinking making sure there's not a vertical
> >:: wall or something unexpected in the middle of the race where I'd
> >:: need grappling hooks to get up. LOL
> >::
> >:: There's this one road that goes up to an apple orchard around here,
> >:: and as I get a little better I keep going back over there and
> >:: looking at it and trying to think if I could ride up it. Even after
> >:: about 9 months, and checking it every three months or so <g> it
> >:: still looks like a 'wall'. I'm stymied at how to try climbing
> >:: it...looks even too steep to try slaloming. There's no run up, it
> >:: just start and goes up into the clouds (or so it seems to me).
> >::
> >:: The local kids say it's only 9%, but I'm like 'durn, it's daunting
> >:: going up in a car...I wonder what 15% looks like!'. ;-D
> >
> >How long is that road, jj? If is ain't 15 mile or something, I say go
for
> >it! :) Hit the granny gear if you need to, standing part way and sitting
> >part way, and taking it easy til you get it. I've found that I can get
up
> >all the hills I seen that look really scary. Just make sure you haven't
> >done 80 or 90 miles already on your legs before you try. And if you have
> >problems, get off and talk it! The worse that can happen is that you'll
> >cramp up. Next time you get further up.
> >
> >The steeper it is the easier it is to ride it standing, or parts of it.
> >IME, anyway.
>
> Thanks!! I may try that. I really had not developed my skills at pedalling
> while standing, perhaps wrongly thinking that I was getting better base
> development by getting all of the hills seated - not necessarily grinding
> out the climb, but trying to get a higher cadence.
>
> Man is that ever difficult to learn (climbing at high cadence). I keep
> trying and trying to spin at 80 rpm on some of my shorter climbs and I
just
> can not get there. I mean I can get up the climbs without much difficulty,
> but it's at 60-65 rpm.
>
> The gear I'm in is just slightly too hard, and if I go to the next one,
> it's much too easy and I nearly fall forward. None of my hills requries
the
> granny gear. Even the 2 mile ride at 5-6% I am in the 52x26, though I'm
> going to try to work in the 42 front ring (I use a triple) - (my granny
> would be 30x26) I don't think I can imagine using the granny - that 30x26
> goes around awfully fast and easy.
>
> But I will try your suggestion. It's mostly a matter of choosing just the
> right gear. I'm such a doofus in this regard (picking the right gear and
> doing >9% climbs) that it might have been in my interests to get the type
> of shifter that allows changing gears when you're pedalling hard.
> Hyper-glide I'm told.) That's why I keep asking dumb questions about 'what
> gear combo did you use, lol).
>
> The road is about 0.8 mile and only a few sections of it are >9%, however
> it's got those transverse ripple ruts here and there and some loose gravel
> at all the wrong places. <g>
>
> My goal, though is to eventually ride this (to me) monster. The total
climb
> is a 6-7% grade for about 2 miles, and then it kicks up to over 10% for
the
> beginning where the orchard road turns off, and then a couple tricky
places
> where it suddenly has bad switchbacks where if you ride it in the wrong
> place, I'm sure it's 15%. So it will require not only good climbing
ability
> and good bike handling, it will also require picking a near perfect line.
> Certainly an amazing goal that I hope to do one day and amaze even the
> local University riding club!
>
> Concerning riding standing, I'm now at the point where I can climb
standing
> for about 2-3 minutes, then I run out of spring in my legs, temporarily.
> Pretty crappy, huh. But I'm gonna keep trying, that's for sure. ;-)

FWIW, standing for 2-3 minutes is actually pretty decent. It takes more
work to stand, because you're supporting your body weight, so it's difficult
for most normal-sized guys to climb that way for long. The general rule of
thumb is that the small guys do more standing, while the larger guys mostly
climb while seated (because the small guys have less body mass to support,
and standing allows for more vigorous attacks).

BTW - for a free weekly email with a whole bunch of useful training and
general cycling advice, check out http://www.roadbikerider.com.

GG

>
> Thanks again for the suggestions and encouragement!
>
> jj
>

[Leo Lichtman]

"GaryG" wrote: (clip) It takes more work to stand, because you're
supporting your body weight, so it's difficult for most normal-sized guys to
climb that way for long. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think that's a correct analysis. If supporting body weight were
that strenuous, then walking or standing would tire you out, make you
breathe fast, and raise your heart rate. Compare walking with climbing
stairs. What makes standing and pedalling a bicycle more tiring than
sitting is that your power output is much higher. When you stand, you can
pedal uphill at a speed which would be impossible sitting down.

[Peter Cole]

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "GaryG" wrote: (clip) It takes more work to stand, because you're
> supporting your body weight, so it's difficult for most normal-sized guys to
> climb that way for long. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I don't think that's a correct analysis. If supporting body weight were
> that strenuous, then walking or standing would tire you out, make you
> breathe fast, and raise your heart rate. Compare walking with climbing
> stairs. What makes standing and pedalling a bicycle more tiring than
> sitting is that your power output is much higher. When you stand, you can
> pedal uphill at a speed which would be impossible sitting down.

It's pretty easy to prove that seated and standing climbing are nearly
the same in efficiency, since climbing at maximum steady power is
cardio-vascular limited and most people perform about the same climbing
either way. The most efficient cadence is slightly different, being
lower for standing, so many riders avoid a gear change while climbing by
standing during steeper sections and lowering the cadence to keep the
power the same. Standing also uses some muscles through a different
range of motion.

[Roger Zoul]

jj wrote:
:: On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:29:07 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: > wrote:
::
::: jj wrote:
::::: On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:17:25 -0700, "GaryG"
::::: > wrote:
:::::
::::::: would be better if I could ride to it, or warm up for a few
::::::: minutes, but it's across an Interstate so I have to drive right
::::::: now.
::::::
:::::: Why can't you ride your bike across the Interstate to get to the
:::::: start? I pass over an interstate fairly often while riding
:::::: around here.
:::::
::::: Because 1) these guys in cars with flashing lights will arrest me
::::: and 2) I'm a-skeerty cat! ;-D
:::::
:::::
::::::: This fall I hope to ride a Century across the mountain - it's
::::::: mostly hilly - but foothilly. However you know how those steep
::::::: little foothills with no runups can be - at least to a beginner.
:::::::
::::::: Did you often/ever drive any of these routes beforehand or did
::::::: you just trust that you were ready. IOW, how much recon do you
::::::: do of new rides in the car, if any?
::::::
:::::: The only times I scout by car is to assess the road surface on
:::::: some of the back roads that I prefer (it's not always obvious
:::::: from a map whether the surface is paved, or improved gravel).
:::::: And that's only when the road is too far away to explore by
:::::: bike. When I go on tours, I trust that the organizers have done
:::::: the scouting for me and just follow all the other bikes on the
:::::: road.
::::::
:::::: GG
:::::
::::: OK, uh I guess I was thinking making sure there's not a vertical
::::: wall or something unexpected in the middle of the race where I'd
::::: need grappling hooks to get up. LOL
:::::
::::: There's this one road that goes up to an apple orchard around
::::: here, and as I get a little better I keep going back over there
::::: and looking at it and trying to think if I could ride up it. Even
::::: after about 9 months, and checking it every three months or so
::::: <g> it still looks like a 'wall'. I'm stymied at how to try
::::: climbing it...looks even too steep to try slaloming. There's no
::::: run up, it just start and goes up into the clouds (or so it seems
::::: to me).
:::::
::::: The local kids say it's only 9%, but I'm like 'durn, it's daunting
::::: going up in a car...I wonder what 15% looks like!'. ;-D
:::
::: How long is that road, jj? If is ain't 15 mile or something, I say
::: go for it! :) Hit the granny gear if you need to, standing part
::: way and sitting part way, and taking it easy til you get it. I've
::: found that I can get up all the hills I seen that look really
::: scary. Just make sure you haven't done 80 or 90 miles already on
::: your legs before you try. And if you have problems, get off and
::: talk it! The worse that can happen is that you'll cramp up. Next
::: time you get further up.
:::
::: The steeper it is the easier it is to ride it standing, or parts of
::: it. IME, anyway.
::

Talk about typos! Damn, I should really read what I write before I hit the
send button.


:: Thanks!! I may try that. I really had not developed my skills at
:: pedalling while standing, perhaps wrongly thinking that I was
:: getting better base development by getting all of the hills seated -
:: not necessarily grinding out the climb, but trying to get a higher
:: cadence.
::
:: Man is that ever difficult to learn (climbing at high cadence). I
:: keep trying and trying to spin at 80 rpm on some of my shorter
:: climbs and I just can not get there. I mean I can get up the climbs
:: without much difficulty, but it's at 60-65 rpm.

That's about where I end up. Personally, I don't see why I need to pedal
any faster on a climb. Maybe if I were planning to compete against
Lance.....

::
:: The gear I'm in is just slightly too hard, and if I go to the next
:: one, it's much too easy and I nearly fall forward.

Yeah, I always shift up a gear before I stand, unless I find the gear too
hard while seating.

None of my hills
:: requries the granny gear. Even the 2 mile ride at 5-6% I am in the
:: 52x26, though I'm going to try to work in the 42 front ring (I use a
:: triple) - (my granny would be 30x26) I don't think I can imagine
:: using the granny - that 30x26 goes around awfully fast and easy.

Sadly, most of my hills I climb in the big front ring, assuming I stand on
the steeper ones. I just find it too boring to drop to a gear where I feel
I'm spinning like nuts but not getting anywhere.

::
:: But I will try your suggestion. It's mostly a matter of choosing
:: just the right gear. I'm such a doofus in this regard (picking the
:: right gear and doing >9% climbs) that it might have been in my
:: interests to get the type of shifter that allows changing gears when
:: you're pedalling hard. Hyper-glide I'm told.) That's why I keep
:: asking dumb questions about 'what gear combo did you use, lol).

Interesting....I just play around with it. I don't tryin to change gears if
I'm putting a lot of power into pedalling - I just try to find the best gear
before I get into trouble. Also, making changes on the back is much
smoother than doing so on the front, if climbing.

::
:: The road is about 0.8 mile and only a few sections of it are >9%,
:: however it's got those transverse ripple ruts here and there and
:: some loose gravel at all the wrong places. <g>

Hmm....loose gravel....makes you want to bring a broom and do some cleaning!
:)

::
:: My goal, though is to eventually ride this (to me) monster. The
:: total climb is a 6-7% grade for about 2 miles, and then it kicks up
:: to over 10% for the beginning where the orchard road turns off, and
:: then a couple tricky places where it suddenly has bad switchbacks
:: where if you ride it in the wrong place, I'm sure it's 15%. So it
:: will require not only good climbing ability and good bike handling,
:: it will also require picking a near perfect line. Certainly an
:: amazing goal that I hope to do one day and amaze even the local
:: University riding club!

Divide that puppy. Don't be afraid ot turn around if you get pooped or
freaked!

::
:: Concerning riding standing, I'm now at the point where I can climb
:: standing for about 2-3 minutes, then I run out of spring in my legs,
:: temporarily. Pretty crappy, huh. But I'm gonna keep trying, that's
:: for sure. ;-)

That sounds pretty good to me. I've not timed myself, but I'd guess my
climbs go about 1.5 minutes, mainly because I start the climb sitting and
stand once I feel I'm getting bored :) Sometimes it just feels better to
stand than to sit while climbing. I listen to my body on it.
::
:: Thanks again for the suggestions and encouragement!

Let us know how it goes. I wish I could do those climbs that Gary G talk
about! Wow! One day.

[gds]

Peter Cole wrote:
>>
> It's pretty easy to prove that seated and standing climbing are nearly
> the same in efficiency, since climbing at maximum steady power is
> cardio-vascular limited and most people perform about the same climbing
> either way.
Peter,

I'm not sure what you are saying about efficiency. Whatever the cause -
my experience is that when standing I go faster but my HR also
increases. I'm not sure if that is consistant with or at variance to
what you are saying. To me that makes standing less efficient as I
cannot maintain it for as long. Are we using efficiency differently?

[jj]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 18:16:34 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
> wrote:

>
>"GaryG" wrote: (clip) It takes more work to stand, because you're
>supporting your body weight, so it's difficult for most normal-sized guys to
>climb that way for long. (clip)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I don't think that's a correct analysis. If supporting body weight were
>that strenuous, then walking or standing would tire you out, make you
>breathe fast, and raise your heart rate. Compare walking with climbing
>stairs. What makes standing and pedalling a bicycle more tiring than
>sitting is that your power output is much higher. When you stand, you can
>pedal uphill at a speed which would be impossible sitting down.

It might be that is valid for short climbs, while for longer climbs, what
GG said maybe more of a factor. I've heard his contention being among the
commentators on OLN, but your comments make a lot of sense.

The power output is supposedly equivalent to an additional 5 beats per
minute higher heart rate standing vs seated according to the 'Pro Secrets'
..pdf I'm reading. (thanks GG).

Also when I stand to pedal, I'm supporting myself somewhat on the h/b - I
don't really feel like I'm supporting my bodyweight, but after about 3
minutes climbing that thought could change.

I think GG's assertion tends to be true over say the mid point of climbs
around 4-10 minutes long, when standing to climb, while your assertion
tends to be of a factor over shorter sprints, say 1-3 minutes. Certainly in
shorter climbs, I'm pedalling standing more aggressively - that might
complicate the dynamics. I have no experience past 3 minutes of continuous
climbing standing.

But thanks to both for the input. Something to think about.

jj

[[email protected]]

You are stucked with WPP. Well too bad, you just can't ignore
it if it was my trolling..

[Peter Cole]

gds wrote:
>
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>It's pretty easy to prove that seated and standing climbing are nearly
>>the same in efficiency, since climbing at maximum steady power is
>>cardio-vascular limited and most people perform about the same climbing
>>either way.
>
> Peter,
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying about efficiency. Whatever the cause -
> my experience is that when standing I go faster but my HR also
> increases. I'm not sure if that is consistant with or at variance to
> what you are saying. To me that makes standing less efficient as I
> cannot maintain it for as long. Are we using efficiency differently?
>

Yes. To make a true comparison, you'd have to be going the same speed.
There's no reason you have to speed up just from standing. If you did
any pace line riding you'd have to master the skill of switching without
varying your speed even a little.

[gds]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Yes. To make a true comparison, you'd have to be going the same speed.
> There's no reason you have to speed up just from standing. If you did
> any pace line riding you'd have to master the skill of switching without
> varying your speed even a little.

Thanks for the reply. I was thinking of serious climbing at which time
pacel lines tend to break up. I actually do a fair bit of pace line
riding, rarely standing but I understand your point. Of course, when
the road heads up I fall off the back of most pacelines- seated or
standing :-)