# One year on - average not improving



## Gixxerman (23 Aug 2010)

I have had my Trek 7.3FX for just over a year now.
In that time I have done about 2500miles including a 100 miler (well actually 97.1 miles - BAH!).
I am fit for my age (45) and play football 2-3 times a week, go to gym 5 nights a week and run a bit as well.
So my fitness level was quite good before I bought the bike (although it has improved since due to my biking).
So I never really had any fitness issues from day one even though it is 30-odd years since I last rode a bike.

The day I picked up the bike I rode it home over a 30 mile course that was not particularly hilly and had no issues at all.
Since then I have been on many short, med and long rides, using computer / sports tracker and my average speed is always between 13 and 14 mph.
Even though I am fitter now, my average speed has never changed. OK I tend to do much hillier routes these days, but you would think that this would kind of average out as the speed you get going down hills cancels out the slow cllimb.

So is my average now being limited by the bike or me?
Should I be happy with it?


----------



## accountantpete (23 Aug 2010)

There's probably a whole host of reasons but basically if you train at 14mph your body adjusts to that level of power output. If you trained at say 18mph the body will slowly acclimatise to a higher level of output-but don't expect quick results at your age. If you threw in one or two training sessions a week you will probably be at 18mph average in a year.

Having said that, you will be getting a fair amount of wind resistance with the upright nature of the bike and the wheels and tyres are not the best as regards speed - as a rough guide, I would say that a decent set of road wheels and tyres (£400 worth) would immediately raise the average to 16mph.


----------



## snailracer (23 Aug 2010)

Whether you're happy about it or not is down to the compromises you find acceptable:

Lowering the bars or getting a drop-bar bike: this can get you a 1-2mph increase but you are then in a less comfortable riding position, your wrists will take a pounding and it's harder to spot traffic coming up behind you.

Faster tyres: these can get you another 1mph increase but are more prone to punctures.

Pedalling harder: this can get you any amount of increase, but you'd be too knackered to play football  or do anything else.

Lighter bike, fancy wheels: maybe 0.5mph, but these are not terribly cost-effective upgrades.


----------



## Crackle (23 Aug 2010)

Gixxerman said:


> I have had my Trek 7.3FX for just over a year now.
> In that time I have done about 2500miles including a 100 miler (well actually 97.1 miles - BAH!).
> I am fit for my age (45) and play football 2-3 times a week, go to gym 5 nights a week and run a bit as well.
> So my fitness level was quite good before I bought the bike (although it has improved since due to my biking).
> ...



It doesn't. Say you normally ride a mile in 4 minutes. Do the same mile up a 6% to 10% hill it takes you 12 minutes. Do the same mile down the hill it takes you 2 minutes, so a total of 14 minutes to do two miles which would take you 8 without the hill (that's a 15mph flat mile, a 5-9mph climb and 30mph downhill, roughly).


----------



## jimboalee (23 Aug 2010)

13.5 mph average for a 100 km ride is not bad at all on that bike. I would be pleased with that.


----------



## yello (23 Aug 2010)

Gixxerman said:


> Should I be happy with it?



Only you can tell you that. It sounds like you're not happy with it though!

I have not become noticeably quicker in the last 5 years but it does feel easier these days. Particularly climbing. But then I'm not motivated to be any quicker, if it happens then it happens as a natural consequence.

I suspect you've plateaued physically and it's little to do with the bike. I'm no expert in increasing speed (as you might have gathered!) but I suspect you'll have to make deliberate efforts to ride faster until that then becomes natural and, hopefully, you're happy with that!


----------



## NormanD (23 Aug 2010)

> *OK I tend to do much hillier routes these days, but you would think that this would kind of average out as the speed you get going down hills cancels out the slow cllimb*.



Not really check your route, you might find that some hills have a longer steeper climb and a more level decent, thus keeping the speed average down, could well be a faulty computer read out, if thats what you're basing your average on.

Any number of factors could come into it, but the main thing is, you've said you feel fitter, so some improvement has been made, I'd be happy with that myself.


----------



## HLaB (23 Aug 2010)

Gixxerman said:


> Even though I am fitter now, my average speed has never changed. OK I tend to do much hillier routes these days, but you would think that this would kind of average out as the speed you get going down hills cancels out the slow cllimb.
> 
> So is my average now being limited by the bike or me?
> Should I be happy with it?


It depends how long the hillier course, etc is imo sometimes you can go up them and power down them so they do just about average out but with a long day of climbing it eventually get to you and they are no where close to balancing out. Some people are better climbers than descenders and visa versa and this makes a difference too.

The Trek 7.3 will be limiting you to a degree but through work (training) you will be able to make it go a bit faster. Other things that would improve things is changing the tyres JE James says it comes with 700 x 32 60tpi, you could perhaps change them to 28 or 25's and a pair with a slightly higher tpi. You could also consider flipping your stem to get a slightly more aerodynamic position. That should see your average rise a bit and then you'll probably reach a plateau when the only way to improve other than being superfit is to get a new dropped bar bike. Good Luck


----------



## jimboalee (23 Aug 2010)

Crackle said:


> It doesn't. Say you normally ride a mile in 4 minutes. Do the same mile up a 6% hill it takes you 12 minutes. Do the same mile down the hill it takes you 2 minutes, so a total of 14 minutes to do two miles which would take you 8 without the hill (these are roughly based on my figures, not made up).




15 mph along a flat. 5 mph up the hill and freewheel down. The energy consumption is the same.


----------



## gbb (23 Aug 2010)

Gixxerman said:


> I have had my Trek 7.3FX for just over a year now.
> In that time I have done about 2500miles including a 100 miler (well actually 97.1 miles - BAH!).
> I am fit for my age (45) and play football 2-3 times a week, go to gym 5 nights a week and run a bit as well.
> So my fitness level was quite good before I bought the bike (although it has improved since due to my biking).
> ...



If i take my 'hilly' route over say 35 miles or a flat route over the same distance...my average is nearly always exactly the same. 
Slow up, fast down. You're starting and finishing at the same level above sea level...so there must be the same distance up...and down.



yello said:


> Only you can tell you that. It sounds like you're not happy with it though!
> 
> I have not become noticeably quicker in the last 5 years but it does feel easier these days. Particularly climbing. But then I'm not motivated to be any quicker, if it happens then it happens as a natural consequence.
> 
> ...



For a long time, my average on a roadbike was IRO 16.5 mph. I had to put in a deliberate and concerted effort over 6 months to up it to nearly 18mph. An awful lot of effort. It certainly didnt come easy for me.
Age has got the better of me...i just cant be bothered anymore. 16 to 17mph average is good enough for me. i got fed up of pushing myself to the limit


----------



## palinurus (23 Aug 2010)

To go faster you need to mix up your rides a bit. Do one or two a week at a higher effort than usual and do the rest of your riding nice and easy.

Monitor improvements to your average speed on an out and back or circular course (all left turns) with no traffic lights or junctions, you will need to take into account the weather conditions (if it's windy you'll generally go slower, although this will depend on how the wind direction interacts with features on your course)


----------



## gbb (23 Aug 2010)

palinurus said:


> To go faster you need to mix up your rides a bit. Do one or two a week at a higher effort than usual and do the rest of your riding nice and easy.
> 
> Monitor improvements to your average speed on an out and back or circular course (all left turns) with no traffic lights or junctions, you will need to take into account the weather conditions (if it's windy you'll generally go slower, although this will depend on how the wind direction interacts with features on your course)



This is one area where i did just that (to up my average speed)
I found honking up short hills as hard as i could, lose as little momentum as possible, then go steady once i'd topped the hill to recover, then resume a normal pace. This worked a treat for me.


----------



## Norm (23 Aug 2010)

Gixxerman said:


> ...but you would think that this would kind of average out as the speed you get going down hills cancels out the slow cllimb.


In addition to the comments above, every bloody downhill that I had on my commute earlier this year had a give-way junction at the bottom of it, which meant I got no benefits from the momentum I'd gained, I trashed brake pads in no time and which meant I had to stop at the bottom of every steep hill on my way home.

My time for a 10 mile run has dropped in the past year from about an hour to just under 40 minutes, but I was starting from a pretty unfit base. I can, on a road bike, average 16mph over an 18 mile circular route with no hills now, though, and I still don't think I'm all that fit. 

Changing the bike might help the speed but it won't do anything for your fitness so I reckon that's either a distraction / excue for N+1 or a way of cheating.


----------



## Banjo (23 Aug 2010)

Gixxerman said:


> I have had my Trek 7.3FX for just over a year now.
> In that time I have done about 2500miles including a 100 miler (well actually 97.1 miles - BAH!).
> I am fit for my age (45) and play football 2-3 times a week, go to gym 5 nights a week and run a bit as well.
> So my fitness level was quite good before I bought the bike (although it has improved since due to my biking).
> ...



Does it matter to you? I am in a similar position to you, even on my roadbike I cant do fast but definitely getting fitter as I can cope much better with hills and long rides.

Personally I am happy where I am ,enjoying my cycling and keeping fit at my own pace.


----------



## marinyork (23 Aug 2010)

Having a similar and perhaps slower hybrid in a hilly area based on what speeds other people (not myself) can cycle I'd have thought you'd have 1-2mph left of improvements. It'd be unlikely you'd go any faster than that without a fast bike. 14mph hilly is very respectable.


----------



## Gixxerman (23 Aug 2010)

I am not _that_ bothered about my average speed.
I was just trying to find out if it was about par for the course for an old fart on a hybrid, and why I can't seem to make _any_ progress over and above my very first ride.
Maybe my first ride was quite a good time anyhow due to my general fitness and I was already near the top of what I and the bike is capable of right from the off.

I started biking again beacuse:-
1) I wanted something to do at the weekends when I had nothing to do at home and was bored.
2) Lose weight so I could prolong my footie career.

The irony is:-
1) I am nearly always out on the bike now, so nothing gets done at home (even the stuff that really needs doing!).
2) I have lost an inch round my waist, but unfortunately gained 2 inches on my thighs and an inch on my calfs. My weight initially went down to sub 12 stone, now it is back to 12 stone 4 pounds due to the extra muscule I have put on my legs. So it has sort of kind of backfired a bit.

So I have not got any faster over the ground at footie, but by heck can I leather the ball now. My clearances from the back are legendary!


----------



## sundaram (23 Aug 2010)

Riding up the hill might tamper with your speed or average. Well on the road the average may be the same and not improving due to age factor. I am 46 and I have just revived my cycling skills and I too feel the same.


----------



## BrumJim (23 Aug 2010)

Riding up-hill, power is much closer to a direct relationship with speed. You are gaining potential energy, which is why it is hard work. Power is energy over time, so climbing the hill twice as quickly takes twice the power.

Going downhill, the thing that is slowing you down is air resistance. This rises as a cube of speed, so you need 8 times as much power to travel twice the speed (ignoring all other factors).

So whilst this is horribly simplified (not including rolling resistance, ignoring wind resistance uphill), it shows why your average speed on hillier routes is lower than on flat runs.


----------



## Tigerbiten (23 Aug 2010)

BrumJim said:


> Going downhill, the thing that is slowing you down is air resistance. This rises as a cube of speed, so you need 8 times as much power to travel twice the speed (ignoring all other factors).




Air resistance only increases at the square of the speed.
But if you double the speed then you half the time you take to cover the distance.
Hence the 8x power need to move at twice the speed.

Luck ..........


----------



## jimboalee (23 Aug 2010)

Tigerbiten said:


> Air resistance only increases at the square of the speed.
> But if you double the speed then you half the time you take to cover the distance.
> Hence the 8x power need to move at twice the speed.
> 
> Luck ..........




Too simplistic.


Pf = ( Crr x (W/375) x V ) + ( CdA x (V^2/391) * (V/375) )

Cd x A = ( (Pf-Prr) x 391 x 375 ) / V^3

Prr = Crr x (W/375) x V

Crr = Rolling resistance.

W = weight ( lb )

V = velocity ( mph )

A = cross section area. ( sq ft )

Pf = Horsepower.


----------



## Fab Foodie (23 Aug 2010)

Tigerbiten said:


> Air resistance only increases at the square of the speed.
> But if you double the speed then you half the time you take to cover the distance.
> Hence the 8x power need to move at twice the speed.
> 
> Luck ..........



And here's the rub.
The main opposition to increasing your average speed is air resistance. Improving wheels and tyres will make small improvements, but improving your wind resistance will make by far the biggest impact to your average speed.
So, make a smaller hole in the air, lower your bars, use Tri-bars (it's acceptable to do this with flat bars and the gain is the same as using them with drops). Once done, narrower tyres, etc may than have a more notable benefit.

But really... you need a nice road-bike... you know you do


----------



## HJ (23 Aug 2010)

Gixxerman said:


> I have had my Trek 7.3FX for just over a year now.
> ...



Get a lighter bike...


----------



## zacklaws (23 Aug 2010)

I don't worry about my average speed no more, but one thing I used to always look out for and that was malingering at a speed less than the average speed that you want to acheive or beat. So for example, when you get to the top of a hill, there is no time to hang about and recover, get the pedals turning and speed back above the average speed you want to achieve. Time spent dawdling, is hard to claim back. For example 5 minutes dawdling at 10mph, requires 10 minutes at 20mph or equivalent to make up that time, and if your legs or bike are not up to achieving 20mph, which you may have to do if the course is short and you cannot make the time up over a longer period before the finish, then it becomes harder to make up that time, 15 minutes at 15mph?. Going up hills, 15 minutes at 4mph if it is a steep one, requires 45 minutes at 19mph to regain lost time to achieve an average of 16mph (think my maths are right), but the problem is, it may be easy to cruise along at 16mph, but can you manage 19mph for 45mins? granted it may be downhill, but it will not be downhill for 45mins as a rule and you may race down at 40mph but only for a couple of minutes or less, and you may even encounter another hill to slow you down. One hill I climb, it takes roughly about 9 mins to climb at 4mph - 6mph, 0.9 of a mile, but I decend it at 40+mph at the other side, so it barely takes less than a minute to decend, but I have then a deficit of around 8 minutes to make up, roughly just over 2 miles behind schedule

Another thing I also did was fit more efficient brakes or maybe just pads may suffice, the original brakes on one of my my road bikes was poor and consequentially I would have to slow down early if I was approaching for example a junction in case I had to stop, soon as your below your average speed target, then time is being wasted. I fitted some new brakes and now I can brake at the last moment if need be, and if its all clear just keep going without having to incur a loss in speed.

I've been working nights, so it may appear a load of dribble if I have worded it wrong, but I think you may know what I mean.


----------



## Tigerbiten (23 Aug 2010)

Fab Foodie said:


> And here's the rub.
> The main opposition to increasing your average speed is air resistance. Improving wheels and tyres will make small improvements, but improving your wind resistance will make by far the biggest impact to your average speed.
> So, make a smaller hole in the air, lower your bars, use Tri-bars (it's acceptable to do this with flat bars and the gain is the same as using them with drops). Once done, narrower tyres, etc may than have a more notable benefit.
> 
> But really... you need a nice road-bike... you know you do




Or just go to the dark side and get a recumbent .......  
You have a much smaller frontal area on one, so a lot lower air resistance.

Luck ............


----------



## Fab Foodie (23 Aug 2010)

Tigerbiten said:


> Or just go to the dark side and get a recumbent .......
> You have a much smaller frontal area on one, so a lot lower air resistance.
> 
> Luck ............




You mean something like this?


----------



## kewb (23 Aug 2010)

my average speed fluctuates between 8mph and 18 mph ,

depending on weather ,road and physical condition`s  lol

my avg avg is around 14mph if that makes sense ,

i know if required these days i can get to 25mph in a sustained sprint something i had no hope of doing when i started cycling 

and climb a steep hill at 12mph compared to half that when i first started ,

average whats average lol .


----------



## Fubar (25 Sep 2011)

Since I started cycling again back in March my average has gone from approx 10 mph (no bike comp at the beginning) to now 12-13 mph so it hasn't improved by much, despite me losing 2 stone.

I can however do much further distances, don't have to stop on hills unless I want to and am not half-dead at the end of each run - success! I'm 42 and still overweight so although I'm still not happy with my average I think it's all relative...


----------



## HLaB (25 Sep 2011)

Fubar said:


> Since I started cycling again back in March my average has gone from approx 10 mph (no bike comp at the beginning) to now 12-13 mph so it hasn't improved by much, despite me losing 2 stone.
> 
> I can however do much further distances, don't have to stop on hills unless I want to and am not half-dead at the end of each run - success! I'm 42 and still overweight so although I'm still not happy with my average I think it's all relative...



Speed will come IMO the ability to get good base miles in (which it sounds like you are doing) is more import


----------



## TheCharityShop (25 Sep 2011)

I brought this subject to the attention of this site a few months ago

I have basically the same problem in that my fitness hasnt improved despite riding everyday in quite a hilly area too

I think the problem is, is that because modern bikes are so efficient it is very difficult to maintain an incremental improvement in overall fitness/speed because you just tend to plateau out especially when you are getting abit older

And hybrids dont tend to be the best bikes to use to guage or improve fitness even further

I suppose if you switched to a decent road bike and doing regular long rides you would see a drop in the times you are doing

if you really want to get fit just take up running, there really is a massive increase in fitness stamina endurance running say 10 miles a day than any amount of cycling unless you are riding up Alp d;huez which is unlikely in the UK

riding on the flat is next to useless


----------



## Alien8 (25 Sep 2011)

Once you plateau it's all about intensity. It doesn't matter what you ride or where you ride you can always up the intensisty.


----------



## gbb (25 Sep 2011)

NormanD said:


> *Not really check your route, you might find that some hills have a longer steeper climb and a more level decent, *thus keeping the speed average down, could well be a faulty computer read out, if thats what you're basing your average on.
> 
> Any number of factors could come into it, but the main thing is, you've said you feel fitter, so some improvement has been made, I'd be happy with that myself.


I've thought about this many times. While locally, it may be true that there's a steep hill, gradual ascent, *if you do a loop*, you start at x feet above sea level...and end at the same x, *so ascent and descent overall are the same*.

I equate it to my rides...and these include rolling hills, no more than 1 mile long and not particually steep...it makes no difference whether i ride my 'hilly'..(lumpy may be a better description) route...or a flat route. My averages are the same.

No doubt, sharp steep hills will affect your times, but rolling hills dont (for me anyway)

I'm not insisting i'm right, i don't do long steep hills, but my experience tells me sometimes hills make no difference...dependent on the kind of 'hills'.


----------



## Norm (25 Sep 2011)

gbb said:


> I've thought about this many times. While locally, it may be true that there's a steep hill, gradual ascent, *if you do a loop*, you start at x feet above sea level...and end at the same x, *so ascent and descent overall are the same*.


 Unfortunately, some areas (such as the Chilterns) seem to have a road running along every valley. That means every ascent is from a standing start and every descent is on the brakes and that can really mess with your averages. And your brake pads.


----------



## briantrumpet (25 Sep 2011)

TheCharityShop said:


> if you really want to get fit just take up running, there really is a massive increase in fitness stamina endurance running say 10 miles a day than any amount of cycling unless you are riding up Alp d;huez which is unlikely in the UK
> 
> riding on the flat is next to useless


Erm, no.

Sure, if you're older and want to put your knees under much more stress, running is fine, but if you're suggesting that training to ride hard for an hour or four isn't going to do wonders for anyone's fitness, then I think you're mistaken. And riding hard on the flat is as hard as anything, if you're really pushing it - I find it just as exhausting as the hills of Devon. At least with hills you have short periods of coasting, if you do need a breather: on the flat if you stop pedalling you just stop. If you ride on the flat for an hour and are not completely shot, you're not trying hard enough.

My own way of both pushing myself and measuring progress has been to keep spreadsheet of my rides over 20 miles, and to set myself targets (one of which has been a 20mph average) - it doesn't lead to comfortable riding, but it does focus the mind and encourage me to push each time. I've got a series of loops from 20 to 70 miles that I choose from depending on mood and weather, then see what I can do.

The only time I never worry about speeds or averages is on the 4-mile commute, which I use just for short bursts - my version of interval training, in a very haphazard way. Seems to work for me though.


----------



## TheCharityShop (25 Sep 2011)

Reaching your optimum fitness on a bike is incomparable to reaching your peak as a runner

Most good cyclists think nothing of doing 70+ miles

but could you run that far? 

no, of course not because the endurance/stamina you gain cycling has alot lower threshold to what a runner gains

i have been cycling for years on end but my weight,physique, fitness has stayed the same

but in periods where i have started running, i lose weight, i feel much much healthier stronger, fitter

and it also complements my cycling as i can ride alot harder for longer periods and negotiate very steep inclines

running 25 miles is a hell of alot tougher than freewheeling that distance, try it


----------



## Nebulous (25 Sep 2011)

Well I'm just shy of 50, took up cycling almost a year ago, from never having done any competitive sport and have seen huge improvements. It has been a huge amount of work though. 

I made a lot of progress over 6-7 months, then had a chest infection, a bereavement and went on holiday very close together. That month or so set me back about 3 months in my training. It was difficult to pick it up again but I did, and reckon I have just about passed the level I was at in May. 

I do concentrate on average speeds, and have a loop I do occasionally as a test. It extends to just under 30 miles and I knocked half-an-hour off it in 6 months. I certainly appreciate that level of improvement isn't sustainable - but I think there is a little bit left in me yet! It becomes harder and harder though. You need to keep up the miles, mix it up and set yourself goals. I don't do the 'can I do this?' what I do is 'what will it take to do this?' 

The other thing is it is important to me. Being able to ride faster is one of the main reasons I do it. I can quite see that it isn't important to everyone, and that's fine, but its also fine for me to chase targets related to speed.


----------



## pshore (25 Sep 2011)

briantrumpet said:


> And riding hard on the flat is as hard as anything, if you're really pushing it - I find it just as exhausting as the hills of Devon. At least with hills you have short periods of coasting, if you do need a breather: on the flat if you stop pedalling you just stop. If you ride on the flat for an hour and are not completely shot, you're not trying hard enough.



+1 to that.

I live in the flat Fens and I managed to train myself to make it up a 2000m Tour de France climb in the Pyrenees.

The flat is good for endurance training because it is never ending. You up your speed to your desired pain level and see what you can do and for how long.


----------



## pshore (25 Sep 2011)

Gixxerman said:


> So is my average now being limited by the bike or me?
> Should I be happy with it?



Sounds like you know a thing or two about keeping fitness in general. Eg interval training.

It sounds like you do a lot if activities. Do you get sufficient rest before really going out hard on the bike ? It might help you to set a new record or push it hard enough to get out of that plateau.

The other non obvious areas to look at are based around technique. Do you coast anywhere on your rides ? Do you push yourself over a hill and back up to full speed before resting in the downhill. Is your cornering fast and smooth. Can you get a lower position (harder on a flat bar) ?

Next up is equipment. Are you using spds ?


----------



## briantrumpet (25 Sep 2011)

TheCharityShop said:


> Reaching your optimum fitness on a bike is incomparable to reaching your peak as a runner
> 
> Most good cyclists think nothing of doing 70+ miles
> 
> ...


There's no arguing with that sort of logic, so I won't try.


----------



## briantrumpet (25 Sep 2011)

pshore said:


> Next up is equipment. Are you using spds ?


I'll be interested to see where this leads...


----------



## brockers (26 Sep 2011)

I largely agree with this. If I stay riding bikes then my fitness plateaus, or at least there are marginal gains depending on how much short and nasty interval work I do. Having started running again, I've found that bombing up short hills on a bike is a whole bunch easier and I feel as though all the base fitness levels have been 'pulled up' as a result (agreeing with the theory), making me faster - on the flat and up hills - for the same amount of effort and without going into the red. It makes me think that if your time is short, then running is bang-for-your-buck a pretty good way of getting fit and a quicker way of geting there than cycling. Though if you want to go out and win a World Championship or a Grand Tour, then sitting on a bike for six hours a day and knocking out 120 miles or more to build up cell mitochondria, fat oxidisation and all that, is probably the best way to go. That said, I'm not a runner, and struggle to go for three miles (but increasing slowly) so can't do the endurance stuff that I can on a bike. 


I find thaat running and cycling complement each other.



TheCharityShop said:


> Reaching your optimum fitness on a bike is incomparable to reaching your peak as a runner
> 
> Most good cyclists think nothing of doing 70+ miles
> 
> ...


----------



## buggi (26 Sep 2011)

i've been riding for 8 years and am still the same average speed, but i usually ride on my own and, personally, i think you only get faster if you do some rides with people that are faster than you. otherwise, you're only training against yourself and it's easy to go all out and then tail off, ending up with the same time. if you're with someone faster than you, you have to keep up all the way. 

Obviously, don't go out riding with a pro.... they'll drop you after the first 10 yards! what i mean is, go out with someone who naturally rides 2 mph faster than you. before you know it you'll be up to their speed. 

i have noticed that when i do charity rides, i'm faster when i get back, and i put this down to the four days i spend keeping up with people! But then after a few weeks of riding on my own, however, my speed drops down to my "norm".


----------



## TheCharityShop (26 Sep 2011)

brockers said:


> I largely agree with this. If I stay riding bikes then my fitness plateaus, or at least there are marginal gains depending on how much short and nasty interval work I do. Having started running again, I've found that bombing up short hills on a bike is a whole bunch easier and I feel as though all the base fitness levels have been 'pulled up' as a result (agreeing with the theory), making me faster - on the flat and up hills - for the same amount of effort and without going into the red. It makes me think that if your time is short, then running is bang-for-your-buck a pretty good way of getting fit and a quicker way of geting there than cycling. Though if you want to go out and win a World Championship or a Grand Tour, then sitting on a bike for six hours a day and knocking out 120 miles or more to build up cell mitochondria, fat oxidisation and all that, is probably the best way to go. That said, I'm not a runner, and struggle to go for three miles (but increasing slowly) so can't do the endurance stuff that I can on a bike.
> 
> 
> I find thaat running and cycling complement each other.


Finally i have someone who agrees with my hypothesis, but its not really a hypothesis its a reality

Im not sure why cyclists are so resistant to this idea of running improving strength and endurance on the bike

Cycling is great after a long lay off from most regular exercise, i mean anyone who gets off their backsides and starts cycling is to be applauded and rewarded particular if it takes a car off the road

But after a while you gain a good level of fitness and become accustomed to that level and it is very hard to move beyond that merely cycling plus getting good mileage in is pretty impractical in the UK with the diabolical behaviour of dangerous motorists
everyday i go out on my bike im constantly worrying it may be my last

When i took up a running regime my fitness just elevated to a level i couldnt dream of riding a bike
yes its tough at first, a couple of miles a day for a few weeks, then a 5 miler, 10 miler
15 miles

my strength becomes extraordinary, the knowledge that i can run 25 miles in around 3 hours makes me feel ontop of the world, in a very small percentage of people who can actually do that


anyone can ride 50-75 miles no stop on a bike providing you have a quality bike but the ability to run long distances is something i value way over distance cycling in terms of the actual level of fitness you need

like i said getting up very steep hills, long rides are a doddle after a proper few months running

plus the confidence you have dealing with agressive idiots is a relief from the strength you gain through running

i mean what the hell are the slobs going to do to me with the strength and stamina i gain from running 100 miles a week?

and thats what its all about, being able to defend yourself against the scum


----------



## brockers (26 Sep 2011)

TheCharityShop said:


> and thats what its all about, being able to defend yourself against the scum



Personally, I like keeping in shape as I like to fool myself that I'm still young and it means I can knock back the odd bottle of Pinot Noir without putting on weight. I'd probably pack some sort of weapon or get proficient at boxing and ju-jitsu if I was that worried about defending myself against the scum. Though at least I hope I'd be able to outrun them should things kick off!


----------



## Stuartaw11 (26 Sep 2011)

I have a similar issue but I have started concentrating on time rather than average speed, my night time training route is 6 miles of cycle paths, a bit through wollaton park ( bloody big hill!) and then more cycle paths, my average speed is just under 14mph, which altho not fast it is not bad when u consider I am constantly stopping and starting, what I am more happy with is the fact my route used to take me 32 mins and it now takes under 25 mins.


----------



## amaferanga (26 Sep 2011)

TheCharityShop said:


> Finally i have someone who agrees with my hypothesis, but its not really a hypothesis its a reality
> 
> Im not sure why cyclists are so resistant to this idea of running improving strength and endurance on the bike
> 
> ...



It sounds like you're comparing cycling at a leisurely pace with running, which is daft. The fact that you don't think it's possible to push yourself on a bike if it's flat just demonstrates your apparent ignorance of how to train properly on a bike to improve. Sure if you just keep riding around on the same roads, doing the same distances each ride and each week then you'll quickly plateau. You seem to think the thing to do then is to start running, where as if you wanted to really improve your cycling you'd actually learn how to train properly on a bike (e.g. intervals of varying durations and intensities). You certainly don't need a mountain to ride at threshold for 20 or 30 minutes (which happens to be one of the best ways of increasing your threshold and therefore increasing your average speed). 


Also, you don't need strength to ride a bike. If you're strong enough to walk up stairs then you're strong enough to ride a bike. That's because cycling is an endurance sport. Perhaps you're confusing strength with power? And while running will undoubtedly improve your cardiovascular fitness, it really is a crap way to go about improving your cycling fitness.

I really do despair at some of the _advice_ offered on this forum, especially when such nonsense is put across in such an authoritative way as it certain to mislead the unwary and gullible.


----------



## briantrumpet (26 Sep 2011)

amaferanga said:


> Also, you don't need strength to ride a bike. If you're strong enough to walk up stairs then you're strong enough to ride a bike. That's because cycling is an endurance sport. Perhaps you're confusing strength with power? And while running will undoubtedly improve your cardiovascular fitness, it really is a crap way to go about improving your cycling fitness.
> 
> I really do despair at some of the _advice_ offered on this forum, especially when such nonsense is put across in such an authoritative way as it certain to mislead the unwary and gullible.


All we need is for dennisn to join in to tell us that weight training improves endurance cycling.


----------



## pshore (26 Sep 2011)

briantrumpet said:


> I'll be interested to see where this leads...



Why ?


----------



## briantrumpet (26 Sep 2011)

pshore said:


> Why ?



It's just of you were going to say that you needed SPD-SLs would make someone go faster because of 'better power transfer', I might have put an alternative point of view.


----------



## pshore (26 Sep 2011)

briantrumpet said:


> It's just of you were going to say that you needed SPD-SLs would make someone go faster because of 'better power transfer', I might have put an alternative point of view.



I certainly wouldn't say that if comparing SPD vs SPD-SL. 

I was going to say that SPDs in general might help utilise more muscles in the pedal stroke and allow more power in climbs and acceleration out of slow corners etc. Those kind of things help keep speed up and squeeze out a small improvement in average speed.

Some say that with the right pedalling technique you can achieve similar efficiency on flat pedals compared to SPD's. Personally, I could never get the circling technique quite right and my feet would lift off the pedals from time to time.


----------



## theclaud (26 Sep 2011)

gbb said:


> I've thought about this many times. While locally, it may be true that there's a steep hill, gradual ascent, *if you do a loop*, you start at x feet above sea level...and end at the same x, *so ascent and descent overall are the same*.
> 
> I equate it to my rides...and these include rolling hills, no more than 1 mile long and not particually steep...it makes no difference whether i ride my 'hilly'..(lumpy may be a better description) route...or a flat route. My averages are the same.
> 
> ...



Another thing about hills is that if you're a reasonably confident descender from day one, you don't have much room for getting faster on the downhills. From the moment you are confidently in control of a particular bike you will probably bombing downhill as fast as you can anyway, even if you're crap at everything else. I live in a hilly area with very little in the way of long flat rides, so making any serious difference to my average speeds would require a determined effort to get faster _up _hills. Which is, of course, possible, and happens in a gradual way, but I'm far too lazy to go about it properly.


----------



## briantrumpet (26 Sep 2011)

pshore said:


> I was going to say that SPDs in general might help utilise more muscles in the pedal stroke and allow more power in climbs and acceleration out of slow corners etc. Those kind of things help keep speed up and squeeze out a small improvement in average speed.


Phew. I'd agree. Getting 'clipless' pedals (SPDs) was one of the revolutions (pardon the pun) in my cycling, and I'm not going to change to SPD-SLs just because 'that's what all road cyclists use'. They're cheap, simple, and do the job nicely.


----------



## vorsprung (26 Sep 2011)

amaferanga said:


> I really do despair at some of the _advice_ offered on this forum, especially when such nonsense is put across in such an authoritative way as it certain to mislead the unwary and gullible.



I totally agree with amaferanga

If you want to learn how to train to go faster there are plenty of books out there. Don't ask on here, it's a waste of your time


----------

