NOTE: These stories and articles have been placed here for the free
use of cycling newsletters with three restrictions:
1) Use only these stories and articles, none from anywhere else on my
site.
2) Reprint each article or story exactly, including everything between
the horizontal lines. Don't make any changes to the content of the
article (you can change the spacing and paragraph breaks), and don't
leave out the acknowledgement. If you think you see an error, ask me
to change it; don't make the change yourself. Finding an error helps
me out anyway; however, it is OK to substitute British spellings, if
you wish to do so.
3) Don't reprint this article on the web or anywhere else except in
a cycling newsletter.
I will be adding to this page as I think of more short items.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bicycle Dreams
from Ken Kifer's Bike Pages
http://www.kenkifer.com/
Printed from a collection written for cycling newsletters
Copyright 2003 Ken Kifer
You know that you're truly in love with something if it fills
your dreams.
For years, I have tried to recall my dreams as soon as I awake.
Some people say they can never remember their dreams, and I can
understand why, as mine are getting harder and harder to recall.
They flee the memory and disappear even if carefully recaptured,
leaving behind just an impression or an incident or two. Even
when fully recalled, most dreams seem to involve unrelated
incidents strung together. Often they deal with events that had
a strong emotional impact, thus I dream about jobs where tension
was great rather than jobs where I was happy.
Most dreams have nothing to do with transportation, of course,
but I have had a number of dreams recently in which I was
traveling, even if only briefly. Most of them have me on a
bicycle. In the first, I was traveling through the streets of
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, where I went to school. That's all I
remember. I know I was there because I recognized the
buildings after I woke up. In the second dream I was on a
touring trip, and I stopped at some people's house. The rest of
the dream involved events happening in the house. Here's an odd
thing: while I am writing this, I cannot remember the third
dream at all, but the other day, I could remember the third
dream but not the first. At any rate, I know I was bicycling.
In the fourth dream, I am riding down a city street, an
imaginary place. As I ride by the shops, I can see what the
people are doing in the windows. Then the street ends at a
railing above some steps going down into a basement, and I stop,
get off the bike, bend over it until my stomach is resting on
the seat, and then balance in that position, don't ask me why.
In the fifth dream, I am driving a car, but I don't know how to
drive it. I pass a traffic island on the wrong side, putting me
on the wrong side of the road, and when I see some cars coming,
I hit the brakes so hard that the car spins around in reverse.
I explain that I am not use to driving cars because I ride a
bicycle all the time. In the sixth dream, I am briefly riding a
bike, and then the rest is about a job where I worked. However,
my employeer gives me a bicycling jersey/flour sack, someone's
idea of how to recycle. In the seventh dream, I am taking care
of my elderly parents, and I park the car for my dad, but I
overshoot the end of the parking lot and end up on the grass (or
I parked the car with the parking brake off and it rolled
forward -- dreams are often unclear about minor details, such as
if anyone was in the car when it rolled forward).
Last night, I had another bike dream. In that dream, I had four
bicycles, my current two touring bikes and one mountain bike,
but also a recumbent bike. Very recently, I dreamed I was
traveling south on the Blue Ridge Parkway and met a couple
traveling north on a tandem bicycle, so I gave them one of my
bike cards (has info about my website on it). I dream about the
website too; in the most interesting dream, I was trying to
borrow money from the bank to open a new web section.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Are You Car Dependent or Bike Dependent?
from Ken Kifer's Bike Pages
http://www.kenkifer.com/
Printed from a collection written for cycling newsletters
Copyright 2002 Ken Kifer
When I mentioned the topic of automobile dependency in a recent
discussion, one person denied that such a thing was possible
and threatened to call me "bike-dependent." I guess he thought
that threat would terrorize me into quiescency! :) It's kinda
like accusing a rabbit of enjoying veggies!
It would be unfair to claim that everyone who owns a car or
bicycle is dependent on it, so it might be easy to devise a
simple test. With the following questions, the following
choices are C (car dependent), B (bike dependent), or N
(neither dependency). Just answer the following questions,
marking your answers on the computer screen (or perhaps on a
separate piece of paper), and you will know.
At night, do you ever dream about driving your car C___, or
riding your bike B___, or do you dream about neither N___?
2) In your house, do you have photos of cars, books or
magazines about cars, and car-related items scattered around
C____, or do you you have photos of bikes, books or
magazines about bikes, and bike-related items scattered
around B___, or do you have neither N____?
3) You need to get something from outside your house, and
time is not a problem. Do you take the car, even though the
distance is very short C___, or do you take the bike, even
though the distance is long and the weather is bad B___, or
do you use distance and weather to decide N____?
4) Do you find yourself all the time purchasing supplies or
equipment for your car C___ or for your bike B___ that you
really don't need or do you avoid unnecessary expenses N___?
5) Do you own several cars C___, several bikes B____, or one
of each N___? (Note: If you don't own a car, why are you
bothering to take this test?)
6) Does the value of your car or cars exceed the value of
your home or does the monthly payment or payments exceed the
monthly rent on the place where you live C____? Or does the
value of your bike or bikes exceed the value of your car
B____? Or is neither true N____?
7) You're feeling antsy and need to get out and stir around a
little. Do you jump in the car C____, jump on the bike B____,
or go for a walk N____?
8) Do you drive the car at least six days a week C___, or
ride the bike at least six days a week ____, or neither N___?
9) Would you never take a vacation without the car C____ or
without the bike B____? Or you can leave both behind N____?
I could go on, but this ought to be sufficient. If you have
a score of five or more for cars or bikes, you are car-
dependent or bike-dependent. A really car-dependent person
will gradually rearrange his or her life to make it impossible
not to drive a large number of miles every day; a bike-
dependent person will arrange the life around bicycling.
Are both problems equally serious? No, they have different
consequences. A bike-dependent person is more likely to have
a smaller salary and to be less social (can't carry people on
a bike or attend meetings across town at the drop of a hat,
and doesn't relate to sedentary activities anyway). A car-
dependent person is more likely to have health problems due
to being sedentary and to being exposed to more pollution.
The car-dependent person will also have greater expenses and
will create more problems for others and for the environment.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyclist Fatality in Cambridge, Massachusetts
from Ken Kifer's Bike Pages
http://www.kenkifer.com/
Printed from a collection written for cycling newsletters
Copyright 2002 Ken Kifer
On July 3, 2002, a 36-year old cyclist was killed while cycling
on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge. Cyclists get killed every
month; last month a motor vehicle plowed into a group of 20
cyclists in Louisiana, killing two and injuring several more.
However, in this case, the fault for the accident is not a
reckless motorist or careless cyclist; instead, the fault lies
with the bike lane she was traveling in.
City planners nowadays often have the notion that if they can
squeeze traffic AND add bike lanes that traffic will slow down
and more people will travel by bicycle. Unfortunately, while
the planners can get the city to adopt narrow traffic lanes and
even narrower bike lanes, the city is not willing to remove the
on-street parking at the same time. The result is that
cyclists are expected to travel to work within the space into
which car doors will open. Can you travel for miles past cars
and remember to check each one to see if someone is about to
open the door?
At any rate, Dana Laird did not, perhaps because she was anxious
to meet a friend to go to a Red Sox game, perhaps because she
did not recognize the danger. Whatever the cause, the door was
suddenly flung open in her path. She tried to avoid hitting it,
and the impact threw her under the wheels of a passing bus.
Some accidents could not be predicted ahead of time, but this
one was. John S. Allen has been warning about the dangers of
these too narrow bike lanes for some time. See his photos and
article at www.bikexprt.com for clear evidence that the design of
the bike lane was faulty.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I Anti-Car?
from Ken Kifer's Bike Pages
http://www.kenkifer.com/
Printed from a collection written for cycling newsletters
Copyright 2002 Ken Kifer
For some unknown reason, this thought was the first that popped
up into my head this morning. Certainly, when I was a wreck bike
regular (the rec.bicycles.* newsgroups) and was engaged in flame
wars with the car guys, I was accused of being anti-car almost
daily. At one time, one of the car guys asked me, "In all
honesty, can you say anything good about automobiles?" I
replied, "Sure, they're good at cleaning the nails and pieces of
glass off of the roadway."
But I think it's a little harsh to call me anti-car. Those
vehicles are essential to the old and physically handicapped, at
least in our current society.
If a few minor bad characteristics of automobiles were removed,
I wouldn't object to them at all. First, I would like them to
produce zero pollution. Doing so would require more than
simply adding better catalytic converters, as I consider carbon
dioxide a pollutant. Second, I would like to see less metal and
other materials in their construction. SOV's (Single Occupant
[Motor] Vehicles) generally weigh from ten to over thirty times
as much as the occupant. I would like to see a vehicle that
weighs less than one third as much. Third, automobiles are
currently too wide and long, making accident avoidance difficult.
Fourth, automobiles are now being designed to drive at well over
100 miles an hour, when such speeds are not legal anywhere. In
addition, I find that when one is moving faster than 25 mph,
that it is difficult to look around. If the vehicle's maximum
speed was reduced to under 25 mph, there would be few fatalities.
Fifth, the automobile does not give the user sufficient exercise,
so I would equip it with pedals and a chain drive. This would
solve the problem of the polluting engine as well. Sixth, with
four wheels, an automobile is just not fun to drive. That's why,
I think, motorists endanger their lives on the winding mountain
road where I live. Much better would be two wheels, which give
an instant feeling of adventure. Seventh, I don't like
traveling around in a turtle's shell. While protecting me from
rain, the shell blocks the feel of the wind against my face, the
view of clouds or stars overhead, the song of birds in the trees,
and the smell of flowers in the fields. Put this together, and
my perfect automobile would have two wheels, weigh 25 to 35
pounds, be say six feet long and a foot and a half wide, travel
at speeds under 25 mph, be powered by a human engine employing a
chain drive, and lack a metal covering. Come to think of it, I
already have such an "automobile." :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How Can One be Safe on a Bicycle?
from Ken Kifer's Bike Pages
http://www.kenkifer.com/
Printed from a collection written for cycling newsletters
Copyright 2001 Ken Kifer
At present there seem to be three safety theories that dominate
discussion of how and where to ride a bicycle. The first theory
is that one should operate a bicycle just like any other vehicle,
that is, using the roadway and following all traffic laws just
as if you were driving a car. The second is that cyclists are
safe only away from motor vehicles, and the solution is the
construction of bikeways everywhere. Where bikeways don't exist,
the solution seems to be to ride on the sidewalk. The third is
guerilla cycling: assume that everyone is trying to kill you and
depend on your wits to escape, ignoring all the traffic laws.
We also have the Critical Mass theory which is that cycling on
the road is safe only after reaching a certain critical mass,
but I'm not sure how the members ride when no such large body of
cyclists is present (after reading these remarks, one cyclist
reported that Critical Mass encouraged him to ride in a vehicular
fashion).
I generally ascribe to the first theory, vehicular cycling. I
believe that when we are visible and use predictable behavior
that we have a smaller chance of getting injured. After over
100,000 miles on the road, I can point out that motorists are
not trying to kill me, that the overwhelming majority respect
my right to use the roadway, and that I am safer by using
vehicular methods. However, I don't adopt the extreme views of
some advocates. First, I don't consider bikeways to always be
more dangerous than the roadway. Dangerous bikeways crowd
fast-moving cyclists with unpredictable pedestrians, parallel
the roadway sidewalk fashion, or have frequent road crossings,
but safe bikeways can be designed without these features.
Second, I also don't consider the roadways to be always safe
even for those with enough training. Some roadways have too
much traffic, insufficient space, or other hazards, and some
motorists drive too fast, aggressively, or recklessly. Some
regions are more dangerous to ride in than other regions, due
to cultural attitudes. And third, I don't consider riding down
the roadway three feet away from the edge of the road and
ignoring the surrounding traffic to be safe at all times. Pay
attention to the vehicles around you and be prepared to act
whenever someone else makes a fool mistake.
While I deplore guerilla cycling, I admit that it has one
strong safety point: the rider is actively involved in his
own safety and does not passively accept that others will
always behave correctly.
In a way, you could say that my safety method is a combination
of the three: I follow the traffic laws at all time while
riding on the road, as with theory #1. I avoid dangerous
situations, even if that means I take a longer route or walk
for a considerable distance, as with theory #2 (however, I
refuse to ride a bike on a sidewalk). And I actively pay
attention to traffic around me, as in theory #3: anytime
someone does the wrong thing, I am prepared to jump. An
underlying principle is that I have lots of time, but I have
only one life. "Safety first" to me means that my safety --
and the safety of the motorists around me -- comes before any
other consideration.
To me, we cyclists don't have to make a choice between
traveling like a motor vehicle or depending on our wits to
escape harm. We can do both: travel safely, predictably, but
suspiciously and warily.
For those interested in further reading, I have written a
number of articles on this subject in my touring directory.
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/
In particular, see the articles on riding in traffic,
avoiding accidents, and coping with fear from the rear.
I also have written an article about bikeways:
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/bikeways.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What Gears Are Needed for Touring?
from Ken Kifer's Bike Pages
http://www.kenkifer.com/
Printed from a collection written for cycling newsletters
Copyright 2001 Ken Kifer
These remarks are an abbreviated explanation of my page on gearing,
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/touring/gears.htm
We need a variety of gears on a bike in order to travel at the
appropriate speed and cadence.
While a consideration of speed must include the highest speed
attained when traveling downhill and downwind, a more important
consideration is the low speed necessary for climbing a major hill. I
have a chart on the above web page for making such a choice, but for
loaded touring in the mountains, all but a few will want the lowest gear
possible, which is either a 20 or 24 small chainwheel on the front
and 32 or 34 large cog on the rear, thus resulting in a low gear of about
16 or 20, which would be equivalent to four or five miles per hour at a
cadence of 80 rpm.
We maintain an appropriate cadence in order to maximize our power and
endurance while traveling by bike. That cadence will vary according to
the conditions. For instance, when beginning a sprint or hill-climb, it
makes sense to gear down and to increase the cadence, as that provides
more immediate power. But for riding long distances, a steady, natural
rhythm is best, which is an average of the best power and best economy.
I find my natural cadence to be a little below 80 rpm. Climbing a long
mountain at a cadence of 40, as has been recommended by some, leads to
very tired legs, muscle strain, and possibly even damage. It makes much
better sense to adopt low gears and to spin uphill.
Now, if one is traveling at a cadence of 80, and the gears on the
bicycle are spaced too far apart, the rider finds a strain in shifting
up and down. On the old three-speed, the gears were so far apart that
they determined how fast I was going and not my cadence. Having gears
too close together, on the other hand, causes either unnecessary
shifting or jumping over gears. So, some years ago, I tried to
determine what was a natural shifting range for me, and I decided that a
ten or twelve percent change felt very good, while an eight percent
change felt too small and a sixteen percent change felt too large.
It seems to me then that having all my gears spaced ten or twelve
percent apart will lead to the most comfortable shifting. How can I
achieve this pattern? If purchasing an eight-speed cassette hub, I
would get one with the following teeth for a twelve percent change:
32 28 25 22 19 17 15 13
With a nine-speed cassette, I would seek a ten percent change:
32 29 26 23 21 19 17 15 13
You may ask, what chainrings should be chosen? Well, with this setup,
it really doesn't matter. The small ring will be your 20 or 24 tooth
sprocket, or perhaps the next largest size, and your large ring can be
whatever you want, provided that your rear derailleur will wrap that
much chain (I ride with a slack chain in my lowest gears to increase my
range). With a 13 cog, a 44 chainring supplies a 91 gear, and a 48
chainring supplies a 100 gear, so there isn't much reason for a bigger
large chainring than that, at least for a touring cyclist. Please note
that a 100 gear equals 24 mph at 80 rpm, so it's strictly a downhill or
downwind gear anyway, although I like to pedal downhill to remove toxins
from my legs.
I might add that it is not necessary to figure out the exact values of
any of the other gears, but you might want to do so to compute cadence
or to satisfy your curiosity.
For those with the older five, six, and seven-speed cogsets, it is also
possible to have a desirable set of evenly spaced gearing. On my
15-speed touring bike, I have 14 useful gears (although I normally just
use 13 of them). The pattern is 52-47-24 chainrings, and 14-17-21-26-32
cogs. Due to the pattern, the lowest gears are twice as far apart, but
the wider spacing is not as objectionable there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Horse!
from Ken Kifer's Bike Pages
http://www.kenkifer.com/
Printed from a collection written for cycling newsletters
Copyright 2001 Ken Kifer
When it takes an 8,000 pound vehicle to move a 150 pound
person, when that vehicle burns 650 gallons of fuel a year, when
burning that fuel produces 16,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a
year, when the pollution from that vehicle is still the #1 cause
of pollution in the US,, and when that person is having health
problems due to lack of exercise (most people deny they have any
health problems, but ask them how many pills they take or ask
them to go for a five-mile walk) and when that person is also
putting a sizable amount of income into simple transportation,
then I think we are misusing technology. It would be most
appropriate to say, "Get a horse."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stairway Industry News
from Ken Kifer's Bike Pages
http://www.kenkifer.com/
Printed from a collection written for cycling newsletters
Copyright 2001 Ken Kifer
In 1999, 17,000 Americans suffered fatal falls. The vast majority of
these accidents did not happened while mountain climbing, cleaning
windows on skyscrapers, climbing high trees in the backyard, or even
while on step ladders. The majority happened while climbing ordinary
household stairs.
The overwhelming majority of these deaths were caused by head injuries.
We in the industry make a a point to design stairways that are as safe
as they can possibly be. We would hate to see elevators mandated by law
for all private residents, and we have argued against them by pointing
out the health benefits of stair climbing.
However, we have been forced to choose between two alternatives,
immediately replacing stairs with elevators or mandating the use of
helmets each time that stairways are used. Therefore, all industry
stairways must from now on be sold with stickers attesting that it is
not safe to climb stairs without a helmet. New laws are being brought
before the legislatures in every state to ensure that all homeowners
purchase helmets and keep them at the top and bottom of every stairway.
We are greatly worried about the impact this will have on our industry.
Already, radio spin doctors have began a campaign of fear against us.
Parents will be imprisoned for allowing their toddlers to climb or
descend stairs without helmets. Plans are underway to install baby
lifts to ensure that no infant is every carried up or down a flight of
steps again. People will begin to be afraid of climbing steps and will
install elevators in their homes. Police will make frequent inspections
of homes to see if the helmets are available and being used.
You may think that we should fight, but fighting against fear tactics
has not helped the bicycle industry at all. In every book and magazine
you pick up and on all the talk shows, statements are made that indicate
that riding a bike is the most dangerous activity one can do. Parents
are afraid to let their kids bicycle outside of the yard, and children
are becoming sedentary as a result. The fact that 90% of all Americans
are sedentary has not had an effect either. Even teaching safe cycling
has been abandoned. The only thing that keeps a few people bicycling is
a belief that less than a pound of foam is magical and can prevent 88%
of injuries (or even accidents) or more. But studies of statistics
comparing cycling and pedestrian fatalities show that helmet use has had
zero effect; they have both declined at the same rate. Ironically,
bicycle use has been responsible for less than 1% of all head injury,
and one would have to ride a bike every day for 8,400 years to have a
50-50 chance of a head injury death, even using helmet industry
statistics. The fact that the health benefits greatly outweigh the
risks are ignored, as are the traffic laws, as is the fact that
bicycling is safer than riding in an automobile. It certainly is safer
than climbing stairs, as we have twenty times as many head injury deaths
as bicycling!
No, with the much greater risks and the lesser benefits of stair
climbing, the only thing our industry can do is to go along with the
current irrational mood -- and to invest in household elevators!
For more information on this topic, see
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/mhls.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humor: Would You Rather be Rich or Right?
from Ken Kifer's Bike Pages
http://www.kenkifer.com/
Printed from a collection written for cycling newsletters
Copyright 2001 Ken Kifer
I received a call from John Smith, who was going to be on Who Wants to
be a Millionaire. He said that since he considered me to be a "major
expert on the topic of bicycling" that he wanted to use me as a
lifeline if they should happen to ask him a bicycling question. Of
course, I had to get him to explain to me what the show was and what a
"lifeline" was. Then I agreed.
Well, the unlikely happened. Not only was he selected to play but he
also was asked a bicycling question. The question he received, worth
one million dollars, was "When was the bicycle invented? A. 1870, B.
1866, C. 1885, or D. 1802." My answer to him was that the bicycle was
invented in 1498 by Leonardo da Vinci, and the proof is the drawing
that Leonardo made of his invention, which is found in his notebook.
In a strained voice, he told me that there were only a few seconds
left and that he had to pick one of the four options or lose a
million dollars. "Then," I told him, "the best thing to do is to
answer 1498, because the truth is worth much more than a million
dollars." Well, he answered "1802" and lost. You just can't help
some people!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven Miles for a Coke
from Ken Kifer's Bike Pages
http://www.kenkifer.com/
Printed from a collection written for cycling newsletters
Copyright 2001 Ken Kifer
One of the best rides my son and I ever had was one of the most
unlikely. It wasn't a beautiful day or a pleasant view. It wasn't a
new or thrilling ride. It was a cold, wet night on a ultra-muddy road
with one accident and several close calls. We were camping for the
night in an area half-farm, half-country, and mainly desolate, seven
miles from the nearest store, after having done some cycling on drier
roads that day. As the night dragged on, we ran out of subjects to
talk about and were frankly bored. Then I said, "I could use a soft
drink." My son said, "Yeah, I could use one too." I said, "But it
would be wasteful to drive that far for just a drink; why don't we
take our bikes?" And so we began. However, the night was a lot
blacker and the road was quite a bit muddier than we had suspected.
Because of our floundering around at slow speeds, the generator lights
just didn't illuminate the road, which led to more difficulties. But
we persisted until we reached paved road, and the rest of the trip was
easy. While we were enjoying our drinks, I said to my son, "Remember
the cigarette ad -- I'd walk a mile for a Camel? You just rode seven
for a coke." Then we had to ride back, and my son fell in the mud
near the end, but we were both pleased with our adventure, more
pleased than we would have been if it had been easier. The next
morning, the bikes had to be washed with a hose, but it was worth it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How to Tell if You Are a True Cyclist
from Ken Kifer's Bike Pages
http://www.kenkifer.com/
Printed from a collection written for cycling newsletters
Copyright 2001 Ken Kifer
To understand this better, see the parent article at
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/lifestyle/trucycle.htm
For those who are unsure if they really qualify as True Cyclists, the
following test has been devised. Add up your points. A True Cyclist
should score at least 100 points.
1. Give yourself two points for each item of visible cycling clothing
that you wear when OFF OF your bike. Give yourself one point for
each item which is NOT visible (socks, underwear, keychains, etc.).
2. Give yourself the following points:
For a dark tan in back with no tan in front: 1 point
For an oval tanned spot on the back of the hand: 3 points
For a frayed right shoelace with the other normal: 3 points
For a chain mark on right inside leg: 5 points
3. When you eat --
Do you eat more than anyone else? 2 points
Do people take turns passing you food? 4 points
Do people forget about eating to watch you? 6 points
4. When you drink at a fountain--
Do you make loud slurping sounds? 1 point
Do you drink all the cold water? 2 points
How much do you drink at one stop from cans or bottles?
A pint or half liter: 1 point
A quart or liter: 2 points
Two quarts or liters: 4 points
5. When giving directions to a motorist --
Do you mention only back streets and roads? 5 points
When told something is five minutes away --
Do you ask, "How far is it?" 5 points
6. Does your motor vehicle have a bike carrier? 2 points
Is your bike worth more than your car? 6 points
Do you not own a car at all? 10 points
7. For EACH quickstop or small food store you know in your area--
Give yourself 1 point.
If you know the owner's name, give yourself 1 more point.
If you have used the rest room, give yourself 1 more point.
8. In your office, for each inconspicuous cycling object--
Give yourself 1 point.
For each conspicuous cycling object--
Give yourself 2 points.
If your bike is in your office--
Give yourself 5 points.
9. In your home--
For each bike decoration, 1 point
For each bike in the bathroom, 3 points
For each bike in your bedroom, 4 points
For each bike in your living room, 5 points
For each bike elsewhere in the living quarters, 1 point
Also, count bike trailers the same as bikes!
10. For your children last year--
For each that rode 10 miles, 1 point
For each that rode 25 miles, 3 points
For each that rode 50 miles or more, 6 points
Note: Children or pets in trailers and baby seats count too!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How to Lose Weight Through Exercise
from Ken Kifer's Bike Pages
http://www.kenkifer.com/
Printed from a collection written for cycling newsletters
Copyright 2001 Ken Kifer
A cyclist wrote:
You're right that you don't need to do redline workouts and sprints,
but everybody knows that it's all about intensity. Thirty minutes at
[a heart rate of] 155-165 bpm will burn a hell of a lot of calories
and jack up your metabolism and release endorphins and give you a
high.
My reply:
Intense exercise is good for burning up the sugar that is in your
liver, but it burns little fat. A longer, less intense ride is better
for losing weight.
I always ride harder when traveling shorter distances. A ten mile
ride might average 18 mph, a thirty mile ride 15 mph, and my long days
on touring trips 12 mph or less. Therefore, my short trips and local
rides should be better at burning fat, according to your thinking,
while the long touring days should be poor. But, my experience shows
just the opposite. Rather than lose weight, I gain weight while I am
riding only short rides. On my long touring trips, however, I always
lose weight while riding day after day at low speeds, even though my
eating goes up tremendously.
When I was married, my wife tried losing weight through cycling,
following Kenneth Cooper's plan, without success. However, during the
two weeks of our one bicycle trip, she slimmed down rapidly, even
though walking most of the hills. (She didn't actually lose weight but
swapped fat for muscle.)
I was a construction worker for many years. On the harder jobs, I
lost most of the fat from my body, even though I was stuffing myself
at all-you-can-eat restaurants for dinner each night. None of that
work was high intensity or even aerobic.
When it comes to burning fat, duration is more important than
intensity, and I don't consider 30 minutes of daily exercise adequate,
no matter how intense.
Edward F. Coyle in "Fat Metabolism During Exercise" shows the amount
of fat being burned declines as exercise intensity increases. For
instance, at 25% VO2max (walking), nearly all the energy is coming
from fat while at 65% VO2max (touring), only half comes from fat.
However, more fat is being burned at higher intensities, because more
total fuel is being burned. Two hours of intense exercise would burn
more fat than two hours of moderate exercise; however, few cyclists
could keep cycling at high-intensity that long.
Source: http://www.gssiweb.com/reflib/refs/32/d000000020000006d.cfm
My conclusion is that the best way to lose weight through bicycling
for most cyclists is through mileage. As there is no special
advantage to being fast or slow, pick the speed that makes you want to
ride the greatest number of miles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments | SECTIONS: | Home | 
Bike Pages 
| Thoreau | Writing | The New World |