Re: I did my first century today.

[Edward Dolan]

"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1) Butt issues,
>> 2) legs
>> 3) lungs,
>> 4) sheer miles
>>
>> If it's that any easy, then why doesn't everyone do them.
>
>
> That's exactly what I'm wondering! I mean, like I said, as long as
> it's not a race, well, you can just take a rest if you need to! I
> didn't mean to say that when I do my centuries I don't stop for water,
> food, or whatever. Though I have no doubt I can do that, too --
> especially on my recumbent bike! (I've also done centuries on my
> upright.)
>
> Honestly, I'm asking. Is there something about a "century" I'm not
> getting here, like maybe it has to be done without stopping or within a
> certain amount of time or something??? 'Cause I'm 34 and 230-lbs. with
> a herniated disc and, as long as I'm not racing, I can definitely do a
> century (east of the Appalachians, anyway!)

I have done centuries too but I have never liked them. Why? Because it takes
me all day to do them. I am talking about 12 hours or so. That makes for a
very long day, especially if you have to do it all over again the next day.

I have done a lot of week long tours. I like to do about 60 to 65 miles a
day. This gives me plenty of time for doing other things than just riding my
bike all day long. Usually at the end of the day when I check my bike
computer I find that I am only averaging about 10 mph. The speedsters
average almost twice that but I do not like to go that fast (even if I
could).

There is nothing magical about the number 100. Frankly, it is a royal pain
in the ass to have set a goal like that for yourself. Do it once so you can
say you have done it, and then forget about it. There is more to life than
doing centuries.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[NYC XYZ]

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> I have done centuries too but I have never liked them. Why? Because it takes
> me all day to do them. I am talking about 12 hours or so. That makes for a
> very long day, especially if you have to do it all over again the next day.

Well, I've done two centuries on two consecutive days, but not more
than that, and I can understand the "physical boredom" after some time.
But basically, since my motivation is seeing what's around the corner
(exploration), I've really not lacked for energy. I also take my time
eating, and eat and drink whenever I want. I'm sure that helps a lot:
I'll probably do a century straight through next time, just to see how
it is riding without a break!

> I have done a lot of week long tours. I like to do about 60 to 65 miles a
> day. This gives me plenty of time for doing other things than just riding my
> bike all day long.

Indeed. I ride to sight-see, not post scores. I can't wait to do my
first multi-day tour! Then a multi-week one, then a multi-month one
across the States!

> Usually at the end of the day when I check my bike
> computer I find that I am only averaging about 10 mph. The speedsters
> average almost twice that but I do not like to go that fast (even if I
> could).

Well, averages get bogged down by a lot of things -- merely walking
your bike, for instance! And of course, if you forget to put the timer
on pause while you're drinking water or eating.

> There is nothing magical about the number 100. Frankly, it is a royal pain
> in the ass to have set a goal like that for yourself. Do it once so you can
> say you have done it, and then forget about it. There is more to life than
> doing centuries.

I'd agree that there's nothing magical about the number, but only
because I don't think it's as grueling as it sounds. Far from it! I
think it's a matter of psychological motivation. Any long-distance
event has to do with being by yourself for a while....

> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Roger Zoul]

NYC XYZ wrote:
:: I'd agree that there's nothing magical about the number, but only
:: because I don't think it's as grueling as it sounds. Far from it! I
:: think it's a matter of psychological motivation. Any long-distance
:: event has to do with being by yourself for a while....

Of course there is a psychological aspect to it. That why you don't see
first-day cyclists doing centuries.

 

[NYC XYZ]

Roger Zoul wrote:
>
>
> Of course there is a psychological aspect to it. That why you don't see
> first-day cyclists doing centuries.


I'm not sure what you mean by "first-day" cyclists -- you mean they
just learned how to ride a bike that day?

Even so, I bet that if you motivated them with a million bucks at the
end, they'll do a century all right, bloody elbows and all.

Of course it's psychological. That's all I've been saying!

 

[Roger Zoul]

NYC XYZ wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::
:::
::: Of course there is a psychological aspect to it. That why you
::: don't see first-day cyclists doing centuries.
::
::
:: I'm not sure what you mean by "first-day" cyclists -- you mean they
:: just learned how to ride a bike that day?

I went out on a 35-miler once and met this lady who had ridden her husband's
bike once at home. The next day she bought a bike. The next day was this
ride. The poor lady didn't even know how to shift. It was so funny watching
her. On a hill she'd slow way, way down because he was in a really hard
gear...then on the way down she fly by. I tried to help her with shifting,
but she couldn't get it. I rode with her because she was nice and because
otherwise she would have been on very isolated roads alone. I was still a
newbie myself, but not so "first-day-ish" as she.

::
:: Even so, I bet that if you motivated them with a million bucks at the
:: end, they'll do a century all right, bloody elbows and all.

Some very fit folks would. I'd bet money I can find 10 people right here in
my neighborhood who are "healthy" would would never finish even a flat
century.

::
:: Of course it's psychological. That's all I've been saying!

There is a psychological aspect. There is a physical aspect as well. Both
have to be dealt with. Regular century riders have beat those both down.
Non-regular century riders haven't. Those who do enough miles with enough
frequency can make the leap. Only a few newbies could, likely those who are
very fit in another sport and who happen to get good bike and gear fit
issues addressed before attempting the ride.

 

[NYC XYZ]

Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> I went out on a 35-miler once and met this lady who had ridden her husband's
> bike once at home. The next day she bought a bike. The next day was this
> ride. The poor lady didn't even know how to shift. It was so funny watching
> her. On a hill she'd slow way, way down because he was in a really hard
> gear...then on the way down she fly by. I tried to help her with shifting,
> but she couldn't get it. I rode with her because she was nice and because
> otherwise she would have been on very isolated roads alone. I was still a
> newbie myself, but not so "first-day-ish" as she.

Ah, well, maybe she's not "mechanically inclined." There are some
sports I just pick up, and others where no matter how much I play I
don't seem to get very far.

> Some very fit folks would. I'd bet money I can find 10 people right here in
> my neighborhood who are "healthy" would would never finish even a flat
> century.

I wish we could bet on that. I really do. Because I'm 100% convinced
that all "healthy" people will definitely "finish" a "flat" century
with a million dollars at the end of it.

> There is a psychological aspect. There is a physical aspect as well. Both
> have to be dealt with. Regular century riders have beat those both down.
> Non-regular century riders haven't. Those who do enough miles with enough
> frequency can make the leap. Only a few newbies could, likely those who are
> very fit in another sport and who happen to get good bike and gear fit
> issues addressed before attempting the ride.

Well, I guess I just come from the "attitude determines altitude"
school of thought on this.