What you read was very self explanatory, Slooowwwww annd Steadyyyyyyyy, I'm done with you darling.
If you would like to share some of the information that I requested in my last reply to you, that would be much appreciated. If not, take care and happy riding.
Joe
Originally Posted by Lovsexy4
Joe, I applaud your patience with S&S. It was truly above and beyond the call...
RJ
Thank you much for that comment...I hope you understood my thread.
Happy Riding!
Joe
Not only did I understand your thread, I agree 100%. I'm a pretty low tech guy and not attracted to too many gadgets. I usually do what my body tells me to do when it tells me to do it. If I plan to do intervals and my body doesn't feel right I postpone them to the next day. Even though many of us ride for our health and achievement of some personal goals, riding, at its core, is supposed to be fun.
You're right on..
I understand what you're saying. I have a pretty good sense of relative effort from years of working out without any aids, but I've found that HR monitors are really useful to me. They keep me from riding too hard on base days, and they let me track my progress on non-aero days. And they let me do tests to understand what my ranges are, so that I can do tempo and LT threshold work (which I think is hard to do just based on feeling).
Eric
2005 Trek 5.2 Madone, Red with Yellow Flames (Beauty)
199x Lemond Tourmalet, Yellow with fenders (Beast)
Read my cycling blog at http://riderx.info/blogs/riderx
Like climbing? Goto http://www.bicycleclimbs.com
It was replaced by better methods that have been proven through strict scientific research. No offense, but the program you describe isn't what a lot would consider "old school" training. That usually involves much more hours/time committed to riding.
Through research done in ex phys labs throughout the country and elsewhere we have come to find better (notice not best as this science is one that we constantly learn more about) means of training our bodies.
~Nick
Depends on the terrain.
Hey if "old school" works for you thats great. I prefer my toys and getting the most out the time I have to train.
I see hills.... Bring them on!!!
WTT compact Rival Crank (used) for compact Shimano crank.
when your post title came on screen I was a bit intrigued. Cause 'Old School' does have its value, and like being able to make 'change' in your mind rather than relying on a register display, is an added advantage.
Now don't take this as A DIS, Joe; but what you're referring to is 'unschooled' not 'Old School'.
In your 2nd line you refer to "plain old school training" as a reason why you feel 20 years younger...
1st - there are hundreds prolly thousands of BF riders on here who all feel the same way - simple formula, get a bike and ride it, more you ride, better you feel. you're not alone there.
2nd - 'training' infers working towards some defined goal, in cycling, that is either some personal thing like health/excess weight loss/psychic karma thang/besting your ridin buddy/higher level poseuring at the local S$#@b*%k$. OR competition. IN any case it mostly calls for some 'organization' and 'plan' to reach that goal, either loosely or strictly.
With that in mind - even as far back as the early 20th century (and before) technology was always at the forefront of the leading edge of cycling, and continues to be. Depending how far you want to go back, 'Old School' meant a solid connection of the motor to the bike, optimum position for the motor to function best, best quality stuff to survive the rigors of the sport. Much of that came from keen observation and decisive thinking - letz call it Scientific Method a la Copernicus/Newton/Planck/Mendel. A lot of which has been substantiated by our later techno advancements, a lot of which has been de-bunked also. But enough remains to allow 'Old School' to be a valid basis for 'training'.
Monitoring devices are just that, monitoring devices and often they tell a different, sometimes more honest/accurate story than your 'gut'.
"Old School' is still about a good plan, it uses tried and true ways to 'build' a training program, race or just perform to the best of a rider's ability. Either way, 'Old School' or New Tech, one still is best served to pay attention to what their body is telling them directly.
In any case, "Old School' is more than sneaks, cutoffs and a 'Fro' . Don;t DIS the decades of riders who worked hard at reaching their cycling goals using the best known tech of their day, by lumping it with 'unschooled'.
There is absolutely no shame in straddling the 'magic carpet' and goin out to pic daisies or 'flyin by feel'. In the same sense being totally wired and sensored out is no less valid in the cycling universe. And considering the sad state of the avg american midriff, a good 'pose' certainly has its value.
With all that you wrote, the formentioned quote stated it correctly..."Old School is still about a good plan, Don't lose focus regarding basic tried and true ways. We still rely mainly on what our bodies are telling us.
How could you call this "unschooled"? You are wrong to say that I'm dissing dacades of riders. I'm not dissing anyone. My post was more of an observation and a challange to go back to the old tried and true.
Simply lose the gadgets and gizmos. Give it a try for a month and see if you still feel the same about them. But to say I'm dissing decades of riders with "unschooled" advice. You are wrong!
That's not the case here.
It is unschooled because you have no plan and no goals. I used to run track in middle school, high school and in college. We had no gizmos other than a stopwatch. I had some good sneakers with cleats and some great coaches. But I assure you we didn't just run around in circles with no plan or purpose. There was a plan, a schedule, and specific measureable goals.
Look there is absolutely nothing wrong with just getting on the bike and riding it to your heart's content. When I MTB, there is no plan or objectives. I just ride for fun.
"Ride lots." -- Eddy Merckx
Just keep bobbing and weaving.....and tossing out the occasional red herring.
So, are you going to address this quote or not?
My observation is that many age group athletes get way too caught up in the gizmos and data...and they'd most likely get faster if they just put their nose to the grind stone and actually 'trained' a little harder...
"Ride lots." -- Eddy Merckx
Please go ride your bike or something.
Last edited by Lovsexy4; 04-06-07 at 08:55 AM.
I would, but I am still waiting to see if you answer my question.
"Ride lots." -- Eddy Merckx
i don't think he's dissing anyone, rather is just expressing his school of thought. while i will continue to ride w. gadgets i won't go as far as to say he's wrong offering an alternative. that's what i love about the cycling community. all the different takes on the same thing.
heck, my mentor doesn't ride with gadgets. it doesn't make either school of thought right or wrong. they just both exist at the same time.
lovsexy4, let's say i rode with your group. i guarantee i wouldn't "obsess" over our watts and heart rates. in fact i would definitely use perceived effort on a ride like that. i wouldn't even use my clock. i'd just count to ten or twenty on every pull.
thankfully though, when i get home, i'd be able to geek out my recorded data. the maps, the route, the graphs, the numbers
Your comment is well taken. I believe you get this.
Thank you.
Spread the knowledge!!!
I think I'll go ride now.
Lovsexyyyyy!!!!
I think your point about using real perceived exertion is a good one - it was for years the standard. The argument for using technology (HR monitor, now power meters) is that it eliminates the subjectivity (how you assesss "feel" day to day can change) and enables more precision in developing your training plan and comparing your actual performance to your goal. As a 50yo I find I can't afford a lot of "wasted" efforts - it's too hard on my body. I've set some goals for myself this year for pace and duration for key rides (i.e., our Ride Around Mt. Ranier in one day - 143 miles, 10,000 feet elevation gain) and I will definitely be a lot stronger and faster following the program I am on (intervals, hills, long hard ride 1x per week, 2 steady rides at easy pace). Since I started this program I have seen steady gains in speed (my all day pace is 20mph) and I am at 3.5 watts per kilo power and climbing. Could I have gotten these gains old school? Maybe - but going by feel (as I did for a while) meant typically I went too hard on easy days and not hard enough on hard days. So I appreciate the technology - but also the spirit of your initial post.
In fact today is an easy 2 hour ride for me (zone 1-2 meaning I can talk easily on the ride) and it is such a nice day here in Seattle (our first 70 degree day) I am turning off all technology to just go ENJOY the ride!
Andiamo!!
Must be nice to live in a world where all you hear are those who agree with you.
"Ride lots." -- Eddy Merckx
Anyone who was truly old school would not have posted so many numbers. It would be more like "I rode a lot today and got tired, it was fun."
Last edited by Enthalpic; 04-06-07 at 11:27 AM.
It's nice to live in a world where people understand a simple point.
Key word here is..."Understand". It's okay to disagree. However you just don't understand the post.
You don't get it! And I can't explain it to you.
For the 3rd time go ride your bike and stop the pestering. My mom said that I can't play with you anymore. Now leave my house and go outside and play.
Now thats funny!!!
Not to get in a pissin match
The 'DIS' comes in when you infer that 'Old School' was as simple as you stated. It wasn't the 'umbrella' you infer. In Spite of many lauded quotes from guys like Eddy M and others to 'ride the bike, ride the bike, ride the bike', they almost all used methodology (and prolly some chemical aids) to reach their goals. NOT, get on a bike, see how you feel, hammer out some miles... that is 'unschooled'. That is not "the old tried and true" - your quote. It is the 'often tried' but rarely successful process. It may be your method, but was not and still isn't the predomiant one in higher levels of cycling performance.
Again. nothing wrong with just goin out for a ride, even a hard one. But to infer its a 'better', 'proven' method is (ok I'll play nice) just plain wrong.
If however your goals are loosely tied together, variable and governed by "feel good cycling" then whatever suits and fits is okay. Most Certainly
BTW, I fit in this latter segment. And I don;t delude myself into thinking I'm actually riding 'better' or 'smarter' than I did back when I had plans and methods. That doesn't mean I don;t go at it; many would say too hard. But, hey, I'm well overthehill and 'fun' is now measured in different ways.
I might offer that you try strappin on a HRM and objectively see if you don;t 'learn' more about you as a motor. Will it diminish your 'riding experience'? Hardly. Would you be a better rider without it? Hardly, not if you're thinkin.
Power meter, even better. Wish I had the resources for one of those. But maybe not, truth hurts.
An analogy which seems to strike the american pysche - your method - strip that Stockcar of its tach, oil pressure and other 'monitoring' instruments, then go 'Dukes of Hazard' around Talladaga as fast as you can - see how well that flies on a Sunday, or any day.
DO 'fly by feel' if thats what suits, but don't try to con others into it is 'the way'. Zen or not
Just give it a try. Can you? Will you?...The Old tried and true way was indeed, just get on the bike and ride. With no gadgets or gizmos. Of course with a plan. But just ride. Listening to your body. Feeling your way through it. Can you give up the gadgets and the supplements and mixes and gels and other stuff for just 1 month. The post was real plain folks. You can force antinomy at every turn. Just try it. To say this is "unschooled" is silly. Everyone is talking "Dis" this and throwing history and text at me left and right.
How interesting to see just how people are viewing this. Though I do believe, some are reading to much in to this. However this is fun for me...keep it coming folks.
Joe
Hmm, you put a vague premise out there that most disagree with, and then you tell everyone who responds with their perspective that they are wrong. You are either a teenager or you work for the Bush Administration. Which one is it?
gene r
hooked, landed and in the pan...
man, am I a stoopid fish sometimes
No sir you are wrong...There is nothing vague about what I posted. I see nothing wrong with perspectives. I only see it fit to correct or to align ones perspicacity based on my original point.
Plain and clear.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
