Snicklefritz

A friend of mine was saying the other day that he rides regularly with another guy who's a racer (but I don't know what level). At shorter distances my friend gets schooled by the guy. However at distances greater than about 50 miles, my friend always beats this guy. I noticed the same thing when I first got into cycling. The people I rode with were always faster than me at anything <30 miles. However at much longer distances, 100+ miles, I could always finish ahead of them or in some cases finish something that they dropped out of. I've heard a lot of people talk about this sort of thing. What explains these differences? Is it the types of muscle fibers you have? ie. fast twitch vs. slow twitch.

johnny99

Genetic differences are important for elite racers. For everyone else, training is much more important. If you don't train for longer rides, then you'll never be any good at them.

Snicklefritz

I guess what I was getting at is my friend never trained for longer distances but he could go out and do them without any trouble, doing better than people he rode with who were racer types. If he had never trained for longer distances, what physical characteristic could explain that he was doing better at those things than someone you would have thought would have done better than him?

Machka 

There is something to that fast twitch/slow twitch thing. I strongly suspect I'm about 80% slow twitch because I'm like your friend ... I can ride all day and all night, but I'm not good at short fast rides.

But there is also a mental aspect. Some people have a long attention span and can sit on a bicycle all day long without getting bored. These people often have a great deal of determination and stubbornness that can keep them going through all sorts of conditions. Others have a short attention span and find being on the bicycle for any length of time to be boring so their effort tails off and they don't do well at distance riding.

Another factor could be the equipment your friend used. Take saddles for example, racers traditionally sit on teensy slivers which have got to hurt after any kind of time on the bicycle, long distance riders tend to go with saddles that are specificially designed to be comfortable. If you are comfortable on your bicycle, you'll be able to keep going and do better out there than if all you are thinking about is how much pain you are in.

SteveE

The "racer types" could also have been track racers who are used to doing sprints. You don't necessarily have a lot of endurance to be successful on the track, depending on the event, or even be very good at hill climbing.

The Octopus 

FWIW, I think experience (note this is something different than "training") and mental attitude account for a lot of success at super-long distances. I'm sure there are physiological differences that would explain things at the elite level, but for the rest of us, some combination of mental attitude and experience (been there, done that, and know I can do it again) probably explain who makes for the "faster" rider over longer distance, assuming that the two riders have the same physical conditioning. YMMV.

DannoXYZ 

Endurance really is about eating and keeping your energy stores stocked up. On a 50-mile ride, you're not gonna be riding at a pace that's going to tax your muscle-strength at all (well below LT). Even your aerobic system is going to be relaxed as you'll be below your VO2-max. Is that racer guy even eating on that 50-mile ride?

Form and technique is also a huge factor. If the people who beat you at less than 30-miles are hammering and pushing big gears, they may go fast for a little while, but they'll burn out with muscle-fatigue and soreness sooner than you, who may be spinning easier gears.

Stamina is also another training aspect that's hard to quantify. If you've done 100+ miles before, you've got some conditioning and can endure suffering for a long time. Others, the speedy types, might not have that level of mental toughness.

There's no simple answer, there's no measurement that you plug a machine into a person and out comes a digital readout that will explain the effects you've experienced. Most likely a myriad of different background training histories that gave each person specific performance advantages at different distances and intensities.

All you need to do to kick all their asses is do sprints and intervals 1-2 days a week and you'll be invincible!

macca123

some people are built to perform best at 50 miles some at 50 metres and some at 550 miles. All depends on youre body make up (slow or fast twitch). I think i would perform best in a 100 mile plus race as my endurance and slow twitch muscles are abnormally better than my fast twitch. However i can train to improve sprints etc. that will allow me to easily whip a not so fit "fast twitch" cyclist.

spunky

That all depends upon how hard you ride those 50 miles and under what conditions.
A month ago I went on an 80 mile ride. The first 40 miles I had nice tailwind and took it easy.
Coming back, I faced a 10 mph headwind for the second 40 miles and averaged about 16 mph for that section.
My legs were tired.

bitingduck

Nah, pure track sprinters (with some exceptions) wouldn't be doing rides that long. Track endurance racers do ride those kind of distances though, and some of them pretty fast. Most trackies I know who can do 30-50 miles fast can do 70+ miles fast just fine, too, as long as they keep putting in sugar.

More likely it's the attention span/interest factor, possibly combined with refueling. If the friend's races rarely go over 50 miles he may not be interested in riding hard farther than that, and also may not refuel to ride hard farther either.

fuzzthebee

If you suck his wheel for 50 miles, you should have no trouble leaving him in the dust.

timmhaan

sounds like that racer doesn't have a solid base. i was this way over the summer - quick enough to be competitive in cat 5 races, but couldn't really hang in there on the longer rides. lots of short rides with intervals will make you that kind of rider.

DannoXYZ 

Yeah a lot of racer-types don't think they need any more in a single ride than their longest race. So they end up doing 30-40 mile rides a lot hammering at 80-85%. But they're caught in no-mans-land and will plateau pretty quickly. Personally, I think everyone should get in a 3-4 hour endurance ride once a week regardless.

tinrobot

Tortise beats hare.

cyclintom

I don't know what sort of racers you ride with but I never rose above Cat 5 and my racing improved my riding all hell and gone EVERYWHERE.

Not only could I ride for an hour or more at 25 mph on flat ground and climb hills in the big ring and not hardly feel like I was climbing but I would also go out and do 60-100 mile rides without stopping and only use a water bottle or two and a couple of packs of Gu.

One of the guys I raced with would do 60 mile rides in less than 3 hours on his own and in the fast group they'd do it in 2.5 hours.

I don't think that you've been riding with serious racers. One or two races a year don't count as being a racer.

webist

Above is certainly true. I think it also worth noting that even the same rider will have differing results from ride to ride depending on a long list of variables.

baiskeli

Definitely has a genetic component. I used to be a sprinter in high school and have worked hard as a rider to increase my endurance. However, it is still much easier for me to push huge speeds over small distances or outsprint others than it is to keep up with people on really long rides or climb long hills.

Maybe you have more slow twitch? You can definitely tell by looking at your family and seeing what sports people are into.

Phantoj

I don't believe the difference is due to slow twitch vs. fast twitch fibers. I think fast twitch relates to your ability to jump or accellerate into a sprint. Probably some other differences, either genetic or in training. There are a lot of factors that limit you besides muscle fiber type.