Endurance: Question about LOOOONNNNG rides

Hi all,

This is a question for Maillotpois, Nanci, Veronica, Denise, and all you ladies who do Loonnnnggg rides.

I started asking this question in M's 600k report, but didn't want to take over that thread, and have started this one.

So do you think that long rides say 200k plus, is in the range of most people who have a reasonable level of fitness? I get the idea that it's mainly mental toughness, rather than physical fitness that makes you successful at these sorts of rides. Are some people more gifted in this type of sport? Are women better at endurance sports?

The longest ride I've done is 75kms (on my son's MTB, reckon it would have been a breeze on my roadbike!) on Easter Sunday, and think that a metric C is really not too much of a stretch from this and think it's a matter of finding a nice day and working out a route. But 200ks or more? :eek:

e

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allabouteva

So do you think that long rides say 200k plus, is in the range of most people who have a reasonable level of fitness? I get the idea that it's mainly mental toughness...

---

If you're already reasonable fit, I think anyone could do a not too hilly 200 K with a few months of preperation to do things like work out bike comfort and food issues.

V.

I worried some about doing 200K ... but there's some fundamental difference on a bike, maybe that ability to coast if you want, or not being weight bearing. I think that every bit as important as fitness would be those "comfort" issues... you're doing a LOT of repetitive motion. On the right bike, it's almost all fun at 200K - boredom is another thing to plan for, but I suffer less from that (any terrain is more interesting than laps in a swimming pool!)

Rambling response.....

I feel like I have a "reasonable level of fitness" (your term). I don't feel like I have a super high level of fitness; I am just super determined. I am also just lucky to have a good biking body - for some reason biking suits me and I am much better at it than running, swimming or ball sports or whatever. I could never do a marathon under 5 hours, but I can do a century in very close to 5 hours. Ball sports make me cry. So maybe I have a "reasonable level of fitness" overall and an exceptional level of cycling fitness?

Are women better at endurance sports? I have to say yes, as long as they're mentally tough enough. If you read the ultrarunning stats, women start to close the gap to men's times in the 50k range. Ann Trason holds ultra running records that men cannot match. I think women's bodies are built for long burn efforts (we have more fat stores and if we can use them we can theoretically go longer.) Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of women are tough enough for some of the truly ugly long distance stuff. You have to have a stubborn to the point of stupid mind set at times.

For a 200k, pacing and comfort on the bike are key. Cycling longer distances is as much about being able to be on the bike that long as about fitness/endurance. I guess it all goes together. But when you get to longer distances, you need to experiment with pacing and food/hydration to see what works for you. As you get more comfortable with longer distances, then you can further experiment.

I think the 100 mile/200k distance is possible for anyone with a reasonable level of fitness who is willing to put in the mileage to build the base you need to go that long. I think you need to be able to ride 6 hours without dying. For me, the 60-125 mile distances were the hardest. That is when I had to work hard to build up my muscle strength in my back and neck, and toughen up my undercarriage, and really nail down nutrition/electrolytes. I think another important issue is just having a love of cycling for long distances- if you don't enjoy it to begin with, it's hard to put in the hours necessary to build up your mileage base. _After_ you can comfortably ride 100 miles, not just survive it, then the longer distances come relatively easy, compared to when you were working up to 100. And after 200 miles, as long as you are as comfortable as possible, and can maintain calories going in, and keep the right electrolyte balance for how much you sweat, then all it really takes is mental toughness to just stay on the bike.

My time frame was:

July: Rode MTB with road tires, base of 35 miles.
Last week of August: Got road bike. Had a base of about 50 miles.
September: 50 mile ride in mountains.
October: 80-90 miles on paved trails. First Century.
November: Second Century
December: Maintained base with 60-80 mile weekly rides, with shorter weekday rides.
January: 200k (no weekday riding at this point, most weekend rides 30-40 miles)
February: Century, personal 112 mile ride, 300k
March: 400k
April: 600k and back-to-back Centuries

Planned rest of season:
April: Century
May: Mountain Century, Wickham Park (running) Marathon, hopefully sprint triathlon series over the summer

Maintain base during summer by riding 70-80 miles Saturday, half that Sunday, 45 minutes to two hours on weeknights as time allows, with two rest days.

September: Back to Six Gap (100 miles over six mountain gaps) with hopes of doing 100 miles rather than 50.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veronica

If you're already reasonable fit, I think anyone could do a not too hilly 200 K with a few months of preperation to do things like work out bike comfort and food issues.

---

I'm not sure I want to know where 200k with 7,400 ft of climbing falls on a sane and rational person's scale.

I love how Nanci always calls it "undercarriage." It almost makes it sound Victorian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadieKate

I'm not sure I want to know where 200k with 7,400 ft of climbing falls on a sane and rational person's scale.

---

Right smack dab in the heart of the sane part. You'll be fine.

broken record...

MP, to think you have 9 more days of listening to me obsess.:D :o

Nanci, do you know what the cumulative elevation gains were for your rides? I think that is an important piece of info. I just rode a 100 mile century with 350 of climbing which was much easier than a 75 mile ride I did with 6,100 ft. Well, the flat century was harder on the "undercarriage." Have you considered a skid plate?:p

SadieKate:

I live in Florida. I'd guess less than 1000, if that. It's so flat here. Down in the Clermont area, where the Horrible Hundred is in November, there are some hills, but probably not what the rest of the world would consider hard riding. It has 3700 feet of total climbing. (I'm attaching the profile.) My Three Gap ride last September had 4500 feet of gain over 52 miles.

What the others said. My longest ride to date was RAIN (ride across indiana) which was 158 miles in a day. I think it took me 9.5 hours total, that included breaks. I start my insanity....er brevet series on saturday with a 200k. It's kinda warped that I think to myself "well that'll be easy." But you do get used to the hours in the saddle, and you're right most of it it mental. When bits start to hurt you have to will yourself past the pain and keep going. I did 91 miles the other day and was cursing because I didn't eat enough and didn't use my BUTT'R. So I was hurting. But if you do a few basic things to keep that pain away, you can go a lot further than you'd ever expect.

I guess when you look at that profile, Florida doesn't look so flat...

Nanci

Thanks, Nanci. I just think those are important numbers because it shows that you wisely picked your rides and your progession of goals. You didn't show up at the bike shop one day and say "Hey, I just watched the TdF and this bike thing looks fun, so I signed up for the Double Death Ride from Hell and now I need a bike."

Your mtbiking certainly gave you a good climbing base also. Doesn't do much for the undercarriage but works wonders for the leg muscles.