I'm definitely of the opinion that for the few weeks (basically, the next
three weeks) when I'm biking long distances, a few extra carbs are good.
As soon as my rides are over, though, I'll be back to "low" carb again
(i.e., now "high" carb is eating two to three pieces of fruit and some
brown rice along with my vegetables per day; I'll go back to eating just
vegetables after my rides are over).
My "hard" ride data:
Distance: 16.8 miles
Time: 1:37:34
Elevation gained: 2041 feet
Avg. Speed: 10.5 mph
Max. Speed: 42.1 mph
Avg. HR: 143 (77% of max HR of 186)
High HR: 173
Calories: 1514 cals.
Starting time: 5:15 am
My "easy" ride data:
Distance: 19.5 miles
Time: 1:35:18
Elevation gained: 1539 feet
Avg. Speed: 12.4 mph
Max. Speed: 41.4 mph
Avg. HR: 144 (77% of max HR of 186)
High HR: 170
Calories: 1386 cals.
Starting time: 5:30 am
My "hard" ride has 9 hills, 8 of which I do during my long ride (which
will be 90 miles tomorrow). For my long ride, I cut out the last hill,
which is very steep, long, and hard. However, for my long ride, I add in
two more hills so that the first 20 miles has about 9 hills (10 if you
consider the long hill up to my first stop). My "easy" ride only has one
of the same hills I ride on my "hard" ride, the "Col de Hogsback," which
occurs at the end (tomorrow, I should hit it at about the 88 mile mark --
it's about 6 percent average gradient for about a mile, with much steeper
sections mellowed by a respite).
I still don't know why my HR is so low -- I feel as if I'm breathing
extremely hard, yet I'm only at around 170bpm.
By the way, I'm amazed at how "accurate" the altimeter is -- my "easy"
ride is out and back, and it looks like a mirror image -- climb to top of
Col de Hogsback, plunging descent, climb to another plunging descent, turn
around and ride back. The top of the hills are the same; the bottoms are
the same; and the outline of the hills are basically the same.
--
Bob M
remove ".x" to reply