Sunday, April 4, 2021

Skeletal Muscle: From Molecules to Movement

 


The relationship between exercise intensity and fatigue has continued to fascinate me and I am constantly prowling the Internet for clues to help me understand what, for me, continues to be a conundrum. Of the many ideas out on the Internet, which ones should I believe? One approach is to purchase a textbook on muscle physiology and exercise to get a solid foundation in the basics, but textbooks are expensive and up until now I have not been willing to do that. Finally I realized that the cost of a textbook could be justified not in terms of any impact it would have on my cycling but rather in satisfying my curiosity, so, after reading reviews on various texts, decided to purchase this one. What have I learned from it?

The first thing I learned is that much of that I thought I knew, I didn't. Coaches proclaim with great certainty facts about how muscles, exercise, training, and fatigue work, facts this book questions. It's not that what these coaches say is necessarily wrong, it is rather that it isn't really known if it is right or wrong, the data just isn't there. In contrast, when this book states a fact, the evidence for that fact along with the reservations with which this evidence should be taken are clearly stated in detail, and thus those facts can be trusted to whatever level of confidence the evidence justifies. This book also tends to be thorough, there are very few of those missing links in the chain of logic that I find so frustrating in other sources. I am not really criticising coaches, they have a job to do and when science fails to provide them with the information they need they have little choice but to make their best guess based on their experience. To the extent I have a criticism at all it is that these guesses are sometimes presented as facts rather than working hypotheses, and this book has helped me tell the difference. On the other hand, though I do not regret for a second purchasing this book, I don't think it is perfect, there are occasional gaps in what it covers that I find disappointing. (I will point these out later in the post.)

So much for the things I unlearned, what did I learn from this book? This book has 200 pages (relatively short) divided into 15 chapters. It is an introductory textbook so covers some very basic, theoretical material that has almost no impact on my exercise and training but provides the foundation for understanding what comes later. My plan was to read this book from front to back, word for word, but so far I have been unable to do that. When I start reading it I cannot stop myself from skipping ahead to the parts that interest me most, using it more as a reference than a textbook. Nonetheless, by this point I have read most of it. The first two chapters cover the basic structure and cell biology of skeletal muscle. I remember learning much of this material during my biochemistry classes oh so many years ago but of course have forgotten much of what I learned, some of what I learned is obsolete, and so reviewing this material was helpful. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 cover how the nervous system controls the muscles. This is the beginning of material that starts overlapping with what coaches talk about. Chapter 6 describes the kinds of "fuel" (energy sources) muscles use, when and why they use these different sources, and the implications of that. This largely confirms what coaches say, though I found it helpful to have a complete discussion together all in one place. Chapters 7 and 8 covers in great detail experimental evidence about the effects of heat on muscle function and other related topics. I confess I have not fully taken advantage of these chapters. Chapters 9 through 12 were the candy that repeatedly distracted me away from whatever chapter I was attempting to read, four chapters on various aspects of fatigue and muscle pain. Those four chapters, along with Chapter 14 on muscle growth and ageing were my favorites in the book. I expected to enjoy Chapter 13 on Energy Efficiency, but it turned out it was too theoretical and removed from real world exercise. The book finishes with a chapter on muscle diseases, far from my primary of interest and a candidate for the chapter I may never read.

So now to the specifics. This book confirms the widespread belief in the training community that human skeletal muscles are made up of three kinds of muscle fibers named, in modern terminology, I, IIa and IIx. (In older terminology, IIx was named IIb.) Type I is low power high endurance, IIx is high power low endurance, and IIa is in between. A concept central to the training literature (confirmed by this book) is that as ride intensity (e.g. speed) increases, use moves from type I to type IIa to type IIx muscle fibers. Another concept not as commonly discussed is that as ride volume (e.g. miles) increases, a low intensity ride where one is using predominantly type I fibers will start using IIa and then IIx fibers as type I fibers start exhausting their glycogen reserves. The following figure from the book confirms both these ideas:


The upper panel varies time at a constant intensity of 31% VO2max, a very low level of effort, a level that a cyclist would typically use for a recovery ride. An interesting point in the graph is that at this intensity, pretty much only type I muscle fibers are used until they have largely exhausted their glycogen reserves which occurs after two to three hours. The book does not suggest any significance to this fact (being very stingy with speculation) but I wonder if recruitment of type II muscle fibers might have something to do with decoupling, the increase in heart rate that occurs at about this point in a long ride in the absence of any increase in effort. The lower panel keeps the time of exercise constant at 120 minutes but varies the intensity. So far, I have found this lower panel less useful.

Imagine I come home from a ride with my glycogen reserves depleted, what happens then? One of the most common pieces of advice from the exercise community is to eat carbs after a ride to replenish glycogen. How long does that take? This next figure from the book addresses that with results that I found striking: 


What about this did I find striking? First, that it takes a full three days to reach maximum glycogen. Second, that the supercompensation is so immediate and so large. After a single bout of exercise, glycogen reserves are increased two and a half fold!

In the past on this blog I have cautioned against overinterpreting results from a single study, and yet the last two figures are just that. Why am I taking them so seriously? It is a matter of trust. This book comes highly recommended from a variety of credible sources and so I assume that, although the figures are drawn from a single experiment, the results they show are representative; that the authors of the book made sure there is enough other evidence in the scientific literature in support of these particular experiments so that they can be trusted.

Examples of other things I learned from this book are:
  • Lactate transport out of the muscle and into the blood where it can be carried away is what limits  the rate of anaerobic glycolysis in muscle, not the rate at which glycolysis occurs. In evidence of that, blood lactate remains elevated for 10 minutes after the end of exercise.
  • The muscle pain that occurs during high intensity exercise correlates with potassium levels in the fluids surrounding the muscles, not those of lactate or pH.

Limitations of This Book


I complained at the top of the post that there were limitations in what this book covers. I'd like to moderate that complaint a bit, it is possible that what I am seeing as a limitation is a strength, that the information that I see as missing is not missing because the authors failed to put it in the book but because it doesn't really exist. Similarly, there may be "facts" that seem plausible, seem like reasonable extensions of what is known, which most experts would bet on, but which have not been experimentally verified with a sufficient degree of rigor to satisfy the authors of this book. When I would hit one of these gaps, I would run off to Wikipedia or search the Internet trying to fill it, and I often could. But could I trust these sources? As I rule, I tend to trust Wikipedia, but I'm sure it has its own strengths and weaknesses. Although I am sure that in some cases my alternative sources are wrong, I am pretty sure that there are other cases where the information I find elsewhere could and should have been in the book. So, with all those reservations, here are some examples of gaps:
  • The two kinds of fuel used by muscle to generate ATP and thus muscle power are fat (lipids) and carbohydrate (glucose/glycogen.) The book discusses the importance of the kinetics of anaerobic glycolysis, oxidation of glucose, and oxidation of lipids to the endurance athlete and thus the importance of utilizing lipids to spare glycogen but does not discuss how long the lipid stored in muscle lasts, the kinetics of utilization of muscle lipids vs lipids from other parts of the body, nor the impact of glucose from foods eaten while exercise, the information needed to build a complete picture out of their kinetic argument.
  • I was delighted to read about Satellite Cells in Chapter 10 of this book. These seemed like they might be the muscle stem cells in which I am so interested. It turns out they are, but I had to go to Wikipedia to find that out.
I think I am working myself up to a series of posts on exercise and fatigue, and if I am, this is the first of those posts. The way this topic is organizing itself is that I am presenting it in multiple posts and getting the foundational material out of the way first so that the climactic post will be shorter and more readable. If I pull this off, this post will be the first of those foundational posts. In any case, I expect to refer back to this book often.



Tuesday, March 2, 2021

My Training Log


This is a very complex and dense spreadsheet format I came up with to compactly represent a short form of my ride training log in a form that works for me. It probably is not that clear to anyone else, sorry! That said:

Everything to the left of the darker vertical line is ride data per day. Everything to the right of that line is summary data. For the rides before the break (2008) the number in the cell is miles ridden. For the rides after the break (2020) the number in the cell is minutes ridden. Thus, these two numbers are completely non-comparable. For those daily cells, the color code indicates the ride type: Yellow is my weekly long ride. Blue is a "Pace" ride. Green is an easy ride. Red is an intense ride, e.g. intervals. In the summary column "Total Min." (the total of the minutes ridden that week) a Yellow color indicates I have met or exceeded the Medical Community's ideal recommendation of 300 minutes of aerobic exercise per week, a Green color indicates I have reached their minimal recommendation of 150 to 300 minutes per week. The summary column "ave min/wk" is the same except that it is a running average over the previous year.



As I have previously blogged, I stopped cycling some time around 1979 not to resume it until August 1, 2008 when I rode my newly renovated Bianchi Specialissima 5 miles home from the bike shop. Being the person I am, the first thing I did after catching my breath was to create a spreadsheet to capture the data on that and all future rides for me and my wife. That first spreadsheet looked like this:


(DLS Miles and DLS MPH are for me, David Lloyd Steffen, AS Miles and AS MPH are the same for my wife, Agi Schönbrunn).

Over time, two things happened:
  1. I wanted a denser format, one to make it easier to see trends over longer time. I came up with the format shown at the top of the post. Currently, I have select data from every ride I have ever taken in that spreadsheet, from August 1, 2008 through today.
  2. I wanted to capture more information and comments than could be kept in a spreadsheet so came up with the following long, text format:



Monday, 2020-10-19
BP, HR, Weight: 136/92; 67 bpm; 172.8 lbs.
Ride time: 10:00am-1:00pm
Temperature/Humidity/Wind: Before, 64/66/2. After, 76/50/8
Subjective Weather: Clear, Pleasant
Dress: Helmet & Liner, Short Sleeve Jersey, Adventure Cycling Shorts & Briefs,
Sunglasses, Cycling Gloves, Wool Socks & Cycling Shoes.
Clothing Appropriateness: Good.
Ride location: New Alpine-Cañada
Plan: Long Ride
Bike: BV
Ave Speed: 12.8
Distance: 33 mi
Climbing: 1700 ft
Duration: 155 min
Subjective Fatigue: Felt strong. Enthusiasm low before start, moderate during.
Mood: :-|
Comments: Complicated week so I get in rides where I can. Scouting ride. Can I make
this easy ride easier by taking the direct path to the lake and then Jefferson
home?
Current Plan: Discover my new rhythm.




Yes, than really means I was entering data three times. I continued to do that until my wife died in 2017, at which point I dropped the middle format, the first spreadsheet I had developed, and went down from triple entry to double.

Am I insane? I don't think so, or at least I think I am managing this particular insanity effectively. I usually enjoy cycling very much, but I always enjoy recording data about cycling. When I would finish triple entering my data, I would feel a sense of loss that the fun of recording my ride was over. Other than that, is there any value to this (multi-part) log? Many coaches advise keeping a training log to help monitor progress and to head off overtraining, and I have found my log to satisfy that function quite nicely. The weather and clothing fields have also been useful to help me decide what to wear on a ride based on Google's weather prediction for the day. When I have wanted to summarize my riding for this blog, my Training Log(s) have been invaluable.

Is that all there is? I'm afraid not. Before I retired, I was Director of Biomedical Informatics for the Dan L. Duncan Cancer Center, which means I used computers and wrote programs to help the Center do its cancer research. I truly love coding, and missed it when I retired. As I developed the long text form of my training log, I had in mind that this should all be in a computer database, so developed and used that form in a way to facilitate uploading it into such a database. An early version of this database now exists containing every bit of data for every ride I have ever done. Does this mean I am doing triple data entry again? It does not. Because of how I use the long text database, I can upload that into the database and avoid reentry. Will the computer version of the database replace the text version? In theory in could, but in practice not a chance, it is just a hobby to keep an old retiree amused. It is possible when I am creating summaries of my rides, for a blog post for example, the database might come in handy, but developing a data entry front end to replace my text file will probably only happen in The World To Come.

How does this all work? The way I log my rides has stabilized since my move to California, and this is how it goes: When I get up the morning before a ride, I weigh myself and measure my blood pressure and (resting) heart rate. Just before I leave, I record the weather. When I start my ride, I turn on Strava on my cell phone. When I get home, I again record the weather and also the data from Strava. To minimize boring data entry, I copy a previous entry from the text log and change only those parts that changed for the current ride. I then (double) enter a few select data elements into the summary spreadsheet. Every so often, I update the database. The way the database works is that any missing "fields" (things like Distance: or Climbing:) are entered as blanks in the database, I only need to record fields relevant to the specific ride. That changes, especially over time. Back in Houston, my routine use of a heart rate monitor and availability of the dead-flat, zero traffic Rice Track allowed me to capture data that I can no longer capture here in California, so that fields for those data are not present in my current text file but because that data was recorded in those Rice Track rides, those fields are in the database. I think as good a way as any to end this obsessive-compulsive post is to list those fields:



General Text Comments:
  Bike Ridden
  Ride Type (Long Ride, Fast ride, Easy Ride, ...)
  Plan for this Training Period
  Ride Location
  Other Comments

Health and Wellbeing:
  Blood Pressure
  Resting Heart Rate
  Weight
  General Health
  Mood
  How Tired Did I Feel?
  
Weather:
  Temperature at the Start of the Ride
  Humidity at the Start of the Ride
  Wind Speed at the Start of the Ride
  Temperature at the End of the Ride
  Humidity at the End of the Ride
  Wind Speed at the End of the Ride
  How did the Weather Feel, Subjectively?
  Time of Day when Ride Started
  Time of Day when Ride Ended
  Clothing Worn
  Clothing Appropriateness
  
Data Returned by Strava:
  Average Speed
  Total Feet of Climbing
  Total Miles
  Total Time of Ride

Data Only Returned by Bike Computer:
  Average Cadence
  Average Heart Rate

Rice Track/MAF Test Specific:
  Gears
  Decoupling
  Ability to Control Heart Rate
  Maximum Heart Rate
  Minutes in Zone 1
  Minutes in Zone 2
  Minutes in Zone 3
  Minutes in Zone 4
  Minutes in Zone 5

Monday, February 1, 2021

Dr. Stephen Seiler and Social Media


Dr. Stephen Seiler, research physiologist and world expert on polarized training, explaining the distribution of intensities at which the best endurance athletes train in his TEDx talk.



Training has been an important topic on this blog from it's beginning. At first I blogged about the books I had read about training. Later, I switched to scientific papers which, in most cases, I found from links on social media which lead to print media which lead to a scientific publication. Recently, one of these social media links led me somewhere else: to a podcast. This podcast featured an interview of one of the foremost academic experts on polarized training, Dr. Stephen Seiler. I have long enjoyed political podcasts, but this was the first podcast I had listened to on the topic of exercise science and I found it extremely enlightening. I was very impressed with Dr. Seiler and, because I am a fellow scientist, I recognized in him a kindred spirit.  I may, at some point, review his work critically in but in this post I am going to describe the way getting training ideas from Twitter, podcasts, scientific lectures, and TED talks differs from both training books on the one hand and scientific papers on the other.

On the web page containing the podcast interview with Dr. Seiler were links to Dr. Seiler's Twitter and ResearchGate* accounts which I followed. I downloaded some of his papers from ResearchGate and started following him on Twitter. His tweets are useful in and of themselves, but also useful are the links to other videos contained therein. To date, I have listened to some more podcasts, a TEDx talk (shown in the picture at the top of this post) and a professional lecture. Despite being very different platforms, these videos^ were similar in terms of the kind of information I got from them and I will talk about them as a group, lumping them all together rather than attributing ideas to individual ones.

How does getting training ideas from videos compare to getting them from training books by (non-scientist) coaches or from scientific publications? The biggest issue with getting ideas from books is one that Dr. Seiler touched on in one of his podcast interviews, the issue of trust. What reason do I have to I think the ideas in any particular book are correct? Seiler acknowledges that trust between an athlete and coach is a delicate thing that has to be earned. This reflects not only that athletes need to learn to trust their coach, but also that some coaches should not be trusted, so the athlete is right to be cautious. On the other hand, books usually contain comprehensive discussions of an overall training strategies targeted at specific, well-defined goals, for example, training for your first 100 mile long ride. If you trust a training book, you are set, you know exactly how to train. Scientific papers, at their best, require substantially less trust because the entire purpose of the scientific method is to allow proof to replace trust, not by providing absolute certainty, science does not do that, but providing the data needed to evaluate the strength of evidence supporting its conclusions. Unfortunately, to provide such transparency usually requires investigating very narrowly defined questions which lack the comprehensiveness and context which are the strong suit of training books. You may be convinced by the conclusions of a scientific study but have no idea what it suggests for your training plans. I am finding Dr. Seiler's talks so useful because they occupy an in-between place in the dichotomy between coaching books and scientific papers, providing more context than the papers and more transparency of evidence than the books.

What have I learned from Dr. Seiler's talks?
  1. Dr. Seiler uses two kinds of data to study which training plans work "best." (The definition of "best" will vary, depending on the individual athlete's goals, of course.) First, he does experiments in the lab where he measures the effect of different training plans (e.g. 4 minute vs. 8 minute vs. 16 minute intervals) on different parameters associated with athletic performance (e.g. functional threshold power.) Second, he studies the training plans used by successful coaches and athletes. The argument here is that this is an evolutionary approach to determining the best training plans in the real world. Those coaches and athletes who use less good training plans have less good results and are removed from his study group by natural selection. It is this second kind of data that was the basis for the graph shown in the photo at the top of this post.
  2. For a lot of his work, he uses a three zone intensity scale rather than the more common five to seven zone systems`. He defines his three zones based on the rate at which blood lactate increases with increased exercise intensity. There are two inflection points where the rate of increase goes up, and that defines the Zone 1 to Zone 2 boundary and the Zone 2 to Zone 3 boundary. In more than one interview he was asked to translate those boundaries into metrics more commonly available to average cyclists, heart rate for example. Personally, I found those translations problematic, different translations he gives seem to me to give different boundaries. He is also asked to translate his three zones into the more typical five zone, heart rate-based system. He responds that Zone 1 in his three zone system corresponds to Zones 1 and 2 in a five zone system, that Zone 2 corresponds to Zone 3, and that his Zone 3 corresponds to Zones 4 and 5 in the five zone system. However, when he describes the boundaries specifically, it seems to me that his Zone 3 actually corresponds to Zone 5 rather than 4 and 5. The boundary between his Zone 1 and Zone 2 seems less problematic, though it might be in the middle of Zone 2 in a five zone system rather than at the top.
  3. A naive framing of Polarized Training could be made that all training should be in Zones 1 and 3 (in the three zone system) and little or none in Zone 2. As I listened to Dr. Seiler talk, it is clear that he is much more concerned about not substituting Zone 2 for Zone 1 and keeping Zone 1 training at 80% to 90% of total training than he is about the distribution of training between Zones 2 and 3. This is based on his studies of real world coaching. He does see examples of successful athletes who train in Zone 2, but not of those to substitute higher intensities for Zone 1; all successful athletes that he has studied spend 80% to 90% of their time exercising in Zone 1.
  4. As a retired academic, I can attest to the fact that paradigm definition is often more important for academic success than for scientific progress. Thus, the cynic might argue that Dr. Seiler's coining of the term "Polarized Training" really comes down to repackaging and renaming things that coaches have been saying for decades. Again, this post is not a critical examination of Dr. Seiler's published works. Nonetheless, I will say is that in his podcasts, he is suitably modest and balanced in presenting his ideas so in this context I think that criticism would carry less weight.
  5. A relief to me is that Dr. Seiler is much more relaxed about how important the differences between training plans are than some of the more rigid writing on the topic suggest. For an older, casual athlete like me, he might almost suggest doing whatever I want, only making sure to exercise consistently and not overdoing it. His research is focused on getting world class athletes to their very peak of performance where small differences become critical, so his focus on these small differences makes sense in the context in which he works. As one example of this, he noted that doing only long, slow rides will increase VO2max, normally considered one of the main targets of high intensity training.
  6. A bike ride is characterized by volume (how many minutes you ride) and intensity (how "fast" or hard you ride.) A simplification that most people make, me included, is that doubling the volume (minutes) doubles the fatigue. In one video, Seiler was discussing the well known phenomenon of decoupling, that on a long ride at a fixed intensity, heart rate will stay constant for a while and then start to increase even though speed, power, etc. remains constant. Imagine a three hour ride where heart rate starts to rise at the end of hour 2. Seiler speculated that might mean that the fatigue generated during hour 3 might be greater than during hours 1 and 2.
As mentioned above, Dr. Stephen Seiler is associated with one style of training, Polarized Training. If one were to name the opposing school of training, it might be Sweet Spot Training, associated with Dr. Andrew Coggan. I hope to discuss Sweet Spot Training in a future post so with that in mind I have been trying to learn about it. Because of my experiences described in this post, I have been listening to podcasts about Sweet Spot Training and have found them to be as useful as Dr. Seiler's podcasts described here. Stay tuned to read about what I have learned.



* ResearchGate is a social media platform for scientists. It is a bit like LinkedIn except it is much more focused on user-provided data. For example, it is a place where a scientist can put their research publications for others to read.

^ Some Videos featuring Dr. Stephen Seiler:
  1. Flo Cycling Podcast (Sept. 30 2018. Scroll down to episode 13. Flo cycling sells bicycle wheels for racing.)
  2. Scientific Triathlon: Polarised training with Stephen Seiler, PhD | EP#177, April 15, 2019 by Mikael Eriksson
  3. Stephen Seiler·TEDx Arendal: How "normal people" can train like the world's best endurance athletes
  4. Fast Talk podcast, ep. 75: High intensity training with Dr. Stephen Seiler
  5. How to Create Multi-Year Development Plans, with Dr. Stephen Seiler and Sondre Skarli
  6. CoachCast by TrainingPeaks: Episode 9: Stephen Seiler
  7. Load, Stress, Strain: Understanding the difference can make you fitter and faster!
` On this blog I originally used a seven zone system (1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 5c) but have recently switched to a six zone system (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). In both cases, Zones 1-4 correspond to those in the standard five zone system, and the remaining zones are all subdivisions of Zone 5.


Friday, January 1, 2021

My 200th Post


A graph showing the number of posts I have made to this blog each year since I started it. I posted almost once a week during the first two years of the blog and then my posting frequency started dropping. When I moved to California, I revised my goal to posting once a month, a goal I have been able to meet. The reasons for these changes are discussed below. (In 2012, I didn't start posting until May, so the number of posts is corrected upwards to compensate.)



Why Do I Blog?


"I was inspired to write this blog to organize and preserve my thoughts and experiences in this part of my life, to document my view of modern cycling from a 40 year vantage point, and to record my experience of a man in his 60's trying to regain enough fitness to return to active cycling.  I will post to this blog once a week."

This quote comes from my very first blog post, 200 posts and more than eight years ago. Eight years is a long time. It might be expected that my reasons for blogging would have changed, or that I might have even lost interest in blogging altogether. However, I am still blogging to "organize and preserve my thoughts". Two things have changed: I now try to post once a month rather than once a week and the "thoughts" about which I blog have changed some too. Even by my 100th post there had been significant changes in what I was thinking compared to my first post, changes which I discussed back then. The purpose of this post is to discuss the changes that have occurred between my first and second hundred posts and to look ahead to what the future of this blog might be.

From Once a Week to Once a Month


"When I started this blog back in 2012, I promised a post a week, and for the first 100 posts, I did a pretty good job of maintaining that. Since then, my record has been dismal. I have some pretty good excuses, but honestly, I just don't think my current cycling warrants that many posts. As of this post, I am going to try to maintain a rate of one post a month. I hope by doing that I can keep them interesting.

The above quote comes from my blog post of November 2017, shortly after my move to California. In retrospect, the promise I made in my very first post, to post once a week, was optimistic. Other bloggers post once a day (I'm looking at you, Bike Snob), so why is once a week too much for me? I don't know, but it obviously is, as is illustrated by the graph at the top of this post. Although I came close to one post a week for the first 100 posts, my rate of posting fell off pretty rapidly after that, hitting a low in 2017 when I only managed eight posts for the entire year. (To be fair, that was the worst year of my life.) Since getting settled in California I have easily managed my revised promise of one post a month, even managing a bonus post now and then, so it seems I have found my balance.

How was I able to maintain such a high rate of posting for those first 100? I think it mostly came from being able to draw on a long history of my cycling. Some of that is literal history, eight posts on my first cycling career back in the 1960s and 1970s for example, but some of it drew on a backlog of questions and thoughts about restarting cycling and catching up on the 30 years of technological and social evolution that I had missed during the 30 years I was out of the sport. Finally, there was four years of cycling I had done between 2008 when I restarted cycling and 2012 when I started blogging. Once I caught up on all that, I had to reduce my rate of posting to reach a steady state where my rate of posting matches the rate at which I had new ideas and experiences.

Changing Thoughts


I was first inspired to start blogging by my interest in randonneuring, a branch of cycling which is focused on challenging oneself to complete rides (brevets) of 200 to 1200 kilometers (120-750 miles). Despite the fact that "once a randonneur, always a randonneur" and despite the fact that nothing (or almost nothing) is impossible, I cannot conceive of ever riding a brevet again, it is just too much for who I am today. As a result, I didn't blog much about randonneuring during my second 100 posts and don't expect to blog about randonneuring at all going forward. So if the inspiration that started this blog is gone, why am I still blogging? Randonneuring inspired me to start blogging, but I ended blogging about much more. In my 100th post, I put those first 100 posts into groups based on their general topic. (Posts about randonneuring were included in the "Ride Reports" or "Training" groups.) For comparison, I am now putting the second 100 posts into the same groups:


Topic1st 100
Posts
2nd 100
Posts
Training3332
History174
Infrastructure and Culture1521
Equipment (e.g. Bikes)148
Ride Reports1311
Miscellaneous724


For many topics, the number of posts is pretty similar for the first and the second 100 posts. The two big exceptions are History and Miscellaneous; there are fewer History posts and more Miscellaneous posts in the second 100 posts than in the first. I have already described how I used up my source of posts in the History group during my first 100 posts, so the fact that that group has shrunk makes sense. To try to understand the Miscellaneous posts, I subdivided them into subcategories. The two largest were Summary and Life. Summary posts are posts like the 100th post, 20,000 miles, and so on. The first of these was the 100th post, so all but one occurred in this second hundred. There have been 7 of these (counting this one.) The second category is Life Events, major non-cycling events that influenced my cycling, like the illness and death of my father, the illness and death of my wife, moving to California, COVID-19, etc. There were 12 such posts. Most of these events occurred during my second 100 posts. (Other subcategories, not very important in explaining the difference, were one post which covered more than one subject, one post on philosophy, and three attempts at humor.) In conclusion, the increase in Miscellaneous posts is due to the many disruptive life events that occured during my second hundred posts and to the accumulation of enough recent cycling history to justify summarization.

If the number of History posts went down because I ran out of things about which to blog, why didn't the same thing happen with other topics, Training for example? Again, the answer comes from looking inside the category. Every training post I wrote in my first 100 was about a book written by a coach. There was one more of those in my second hundred, but all the rest were about scientific papers. Although I was still posting about training, it was at a higher level of sophistication making it essentially a new topic. 

O brave new world, That has such bicycles in't! (with apologies to Aldous Huxley)


Randonneuring and the history of my cycling were not the only topics to become less important in my second 100 posts. Posts about my bewilderment at the changes in bicycle technology did as well. By my 100th post, I had pretty much figured that out and made peace with those changes. Visually, I still prefer the look of bikes from my youth and I still prefer to ride on Brooks saddles, but these days I am happy to discuss the latest gravel specific grupos and the newest and hottest bikes on the market. I knew I had changed when I had the opportunity to buy a vintage Peugeot PX-10 for a very affordable $500 and passed, not because of the $500 but because I found, to my surprise, I didn't actually want it. I still love my 1960 Bianchi Specialissima and my 1967 Hetchins Mountain King. However, I don't love them just because they are classics but because they are my classics, the actual bikes I rode back in the day. If I buy myself a new bike it most likely will be thoroughly modern. At the end of 2019, I planned to purchase a band new Bianchi Infinito. The inspiration for that purchase was to make riding the 2020 Death Ride a bit easier. The only thing that stopped me from buying that bike was the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic meant no 2020 Death Ride which meant no new bike. If the vaccines work and there is a Death Ride 2021, will I buy that bike? I don't know, it's so 2019. I might prefer something more modern. 

Resources


When I wrote my 100th post summary, I didn't have room to include the influences on my blog in that post so I discussed those in my 101st post. Many of those resources ended up being listed on the right margin of my blog. I was inspired by this 200th post to update that list, and it was a sad process. Lovely Bicycle hasn't posted in three years, nor have the Blaylocks, so both were removed from my list. Other sites were removed when I realized I no longer had any interest in visiting them. In general, I rely much less on cycling sites than I used to. Bike Snob I visit every day, but that is more because of his entertaining writing style than because he blogs about bicycling. Bike Forums is a wonderful site and I recommend it enthusiastically but even it barely made the cut. I doubt that I visit it more than once every six months. I still read everything Coach John Hughes posts on RoadBikeRider, and find something like a quarter to a half of his articles useful (more than enough to keep me interested) but he is the only coach I follow anymore. The link to the Modesto Roadmen Website is more of an advertisement than a resource. I created it and I think it is way cool but you get to decide about that for yourself. And that's about it.


What Do I Have Left to Blog About?


Can I keep this up forever, or at least for as long as I am still riding? I believe I can. I have discovered new sources of training advice, podcasts and tweets. Once the pandemic is under control there should be more rides so the ride report category should become active again. I definitely hope to buy at least one new bike and lots of bike equipment, so posts about Equipment should continue. I really hope the miscellaneous posts slow down since most of those are in the "Life Events" subcategory, and most such events are bad news, but I think I can make up for that by posting more in the other categories. 

Who Reads This Blog? Do I Care?


Nothing I have said so far requires that anyone besides me reads this blog. My son Matthew has a saying "If you want to think, write," a saying I have found to be very true. That is reason enough for me to write these blog posts. On the other hand, none of that requires a blog, a journal would do just as well. Thus, the fact that I chose to write on a blog rather than in a journal suggests that I do care if somebody read what I write, and I confess that I do. 

So does anyone read this blog? Blogger, the software I use to host this blog, provides some statistics on who has been accessing my blog. The number of people who read this blog varies a great deal from post to post but it is never large. I have between 5 and 10 "regular" readers, people who see my post within days of my posting it. As best I can tell, these are mostly friends or relatives. From there, the number of people who see a post varies enormously from post to post and goes up slowly over time. Because of this latter fact, it is difficult to compare the number of people who have visited my blog during my last 100 posts to those who visited the first 100 posts because these older posts have had more time to accumulate visits. When I wrote my 100th post, the most popular page had accumulated just under 1,000 visits. The most popular of those first 100 now has over 2,600 visits. My most popular of the second 100 posts currently has had just over 1,700 visits. To give some idea of how variable this is, the posts just before and after the one that got over 1,700 visits have gotten 125 and 456 visits respectively. 

Are these late arrivers the people I hoped would read my blog? I really don't know. They could be, but they also could be people who somehow stumble across my blog only to realize it is not what they are looking for.  How do these late arrivals end up on my blog? I am essentially a non-participant when it comes to promoting my blog. The one thing I did in that direction, back when I was a member of Randonneuring USA, was to add my blog to RUSA Blogs, a bookmarking site for RUSA members. I also sometimes list this blog as "my website" when I create an account, for example on the Bike Forums website. These lead to some referrals. Google Search (and other search engines) are an obvious way for someone to get to my own blog and the evidence shows that they lead to some referrals as well. Are there others? There are, and Blogger lists the top 19. After that, everyone else is relegated to the category "Other". Since I began this blog, it has received 108,065 visits. The category "Other" constitutes 82,600 of these visits, or 76%. Another 7 are sites that make no sense to me. I did some poking around, and I gather at least some of these are what is called "Social Bookmarking" sites. Honestly, I had no idea that social bookmarking was even a thing until I started working on this post and I still don't know very much about it, so I dump those 7 back into "Other" bringing it up to 78% of the total. Of the remaining 22%, search engines (almost entirely Google) constitute 18%, leaving only 4% for everything else. RUSA Blogs, mentioned above, is 2%, cases where someone links from one page on my blog to another is 1%, leaving 1%. A social media platform named rredit, which my younger son uses a lot but which I have never visited, is 0.3%, trailsnet, a blog about hiking and biking trails, is 0.2%, and Facebook is 0.1%. The last 0.4% is rounding error (for example, search engines were actually 18.24% of the visits.) Any visits from places like Bike Forums where I am a member and list this blog as "my website" are lost in the "Other" category. I do know I got at least one visitor from Bike Forums, because they left a comment to that effect. So what do I conclude from all this? That the Internet is a big, complicated, confusing place incomprehensible to me and as a result I have no idea who the people are who visit my site.

Another metric of interest besides visits is comments. I rarely get comments, and comments are even more rare in my second 100 posts than they were in the first. Twenty nine of my first 100 posts got comments while only four of my second 100 did. Judging from the fact that these visitors took the time to leave comments and the content of these comments, are these the people I hoped would see my blog? I think they are. If so, is that all there is or are these the tip of an iceberg of folks who came, enjoyed, and moved on quietly? I have no idea. In my 100th post, I asked readers to leave a comment to help me figure that out. Nobody did. Now, older, sadder, and wiser, I won't even ask.



So that's it, my 200th post. My plan for next month is to blog about Dr. Stephen Seiler, polarized training, and podcasts and twitter as sources of training ideas more generally. Despite having posted on polarized training several times before, I do think there is more worth saying on that topic. Stay tuned.

Tuesday, December 1, 2020

I Am Legend: the Emerald Lake Ride


The title of this post pays homage to one of the first Zombie books ever published, Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend", originally published in 1954, and is a somewhat ironic nod to the fact that, because of the ride described here, I have attained Local Legend status on Strava.The above picture is a scan of the edition of this book that I own, published in 1964. 

This post may get the award for "Most Potential Titles". The first was "Lake Loop GoTo ride". The second was "I Am Legend". I smooshed these first two together to create the title I used. A third potential title was "The Rice Track, California Style" to note the fact that my new GoTo ride has the same "many lap around a short course" property as my old favorite in Texas.



Regular readers of this blog know that, last July, I moved from San Carlos to Emerald Hills, a move that impacted my cycling. One concern I expressed was that, because me new home was in a hillier neighborhood than the San Carlos house, it would be harder for me to find the easy rides which are a necessary part of my training schedule. This new GoTo ride is not a perfect solution to that problem, my local geography probably makes a perfect solution impossible, but so far, it seems to be working pretty well.

The core of this new ride is a local gem of my delightfully quirky new neighborhood, a man-made lake set up like a summer camp swimming hole organized as a country club for the enjoyment of local residents; the Emerald Lake Country Club. I don't belong, but my grandkids and their parents do, and I can use it as their guest.




The local streets make a short 0.4mile loop which follows the shores of this lake fairly closely. I was inspired to explore this loop thinking that this might be my long-sought flat ride. The laws of physics dictate that the lake itself must be flat, so maybe the roads around it would be as well. They probably are about as flat as a road in this neighborhood can be, but they are not perfectly flat, I usually do some gear shifting as I go around the lake. By the time one gets far enough from the shores of the lake to build a road, the terrain has already acquired some ups and downs. The larger issue is the hills going to and from this loop. By the most direct route, the lake is less than a half mile from my house, all downhill. Returning by that route would be impossible, however, due to the steepness of the hills. As it happens, I also don't want to take that route to go to the lake because it includes too many dangerous intersections. The routes I have selected to go to and from the lake are different. The route to the lake is about a mile long, starts with a short, steep climb, then has some flats, and finally a very steep (but safe) downhill. The route home is 1.7 miles, almost all uphill, mostly steep. There is a 2.3 mile route home that is less steep but features heavier traffic and after having tried both, decided I prefer the 1.7 mile route. If I use the lowest gear on my Volpe and deliberately keep my pace as slow as I can, the ride home, while not effortless, is not too bad. I feel like this makes for an OK recovery ride, and gives me practice saving my strength on hills to boot.

So where did this lovely lake come from? In researching this post, I came across this informative interview with the current president of the Country Club. Briefly, the dam that forms the lake was constructed in 1920 by a pair of developers who imagined they could attract visitors from San Francisco. After six years, they were unhappy with the business and sold the lake to a group of local families who ran it in a way that has stayed the same until today. Fifty families share ownership of the lake and its developments (a sandy beach, diving boards, a barbeque area with picnic tables, etc.) Every couple of years or so one of them sells their share to another family. This group of families sets the policies for the lake and sells a strictly limited number of summer memberships to anyone who would like to use it. It is this summer membership that my son and daughter-in-law have. A family who is interested in acquiring an ownership share when one becomes available volunteers to help with lake maintenance and is put on a waiting list. The lake is very well run. My son and daughter-in-law are very conservative about COVID-19, but the lake management was able to develop policies to keep the lake open that were safe enough that they felt comfortable allowing their children continued to use it, a very welcome relief from the limits the pandemic have imposed on us all.

So how did I get to be a legend? Strava is famous for its segments, stretches of road on which they track and compare the performance of their members. For any given ride I do, I have the opportunity to notice how slow I am compared to everyone else on several such segments. Stava also has a consolation prize for those of us who are never going to set a speed record. If you ride a particular segment more often than anyone else, you are declared a "Local Legend." The loop around Emerald Hills Lake is such a segment. My fastest time around the lake is 1 minute and 39 seconds. The record is 1 minute and 2 seconds. (It would probably be much faster if this segment was at all popular.) However, because I have chosen to go around this lake 20 times every time I do one of my easy rides, and because this segment is not very popular, very quickly I had ridden it more often than anyone else; I Am Legend.




Sunday, November 8, 2020

40,000 Miles and Counting


Approximately six years ago I posted about the first 20,000 miles of cycling I had done since I restarted cycling in 2008. In this post, I will continue the tradition and blog about reaching 40,000 miles. I went back and re-read that earlier post and was struck by how relevant it still is. By simply updating the numbers I could probably reuse that earlier post, but I don't want to do that. Instead, I am going to look at the subject from a different angle and consider different issues than I did last time. Given that, it seemed appropriate to focus on not just my second 20,000 miles, but to (re)consider all 40,000 miles I have ridden.

So what are the new issues I am looking to consider this time around?
  • I did not ride alone. My wife Agi was my most frequent and by far my favorite riding partner and was a significant cyclist in her own right. I won't say I neglected her on this blog, given its original focus and Agi's intense desire for privacy I feel like I did the right thing at the time. Now, however, I feel like it is time to look at her part in all this in more detail.
  • 10,000 miles ago, I suffered the worst blow of my life: I lost Agi to cancer. This changed every aspect of my life, cycling included.
  • During the 12 years of my second cycling career I also retired, went through the illness and death of both my parents, acquired two daughters-in-law and two grandchildren, moved from a flat part of Texas to a hilly part of California, went through hurricanes and forest fires and now a global pandemic. And let us not forget that, at my age, the physical consequences of getting 12 years older is no small thing. Physically, I am not the same person who started all this so long ago. How I cycle is not just the product of training theories and my interests, but is probably even more the product of these life events.
  • I have been learning about modern bicycle technology and training practices. I know so much more now than I did when I started all this back in '08.
As I was approaching 55 years of age I realized my physical condition had deteriorated badly and that I needed to start an exercise program. I had initial successes with weight training, swimming, and running, but in each case, my resolve eventually faded and the exercise program came to a stop. In early 2008, as I was approaching my 59th birthday, I got a surprise phone call from Paul, a member of my high school bicycle club. Before that call, Paul and I had been out of touch for forty years. We reminisced about our bicycle club, the Modesto Roadmen, and as a result, he got on eBay and bought himself a modern carbon road bike and I took my 1960 Bianchi Specialissima to a local bike shop to be returned to a rideable condition, and we both started riding again. My first ride, five miles home from the bike shop, was on August 1, 2008. My second ride was on August 5, 2008. It was five miles around our neighborhood and I was joined by my wife on the 1973 Gitane road bike we had bought for her back when we first started dating. Although not all my riding was done with Agi, a significant fraction was. She was an enthusiastic cyclist and a wonderful partner on a ride. For her landmark 60th birthday that October she decided to celebrate with a bicycling weekend in the Hill Country of Texas. Just weeks later, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer has a terrible prognosis and we were devastated. We were relatively fortunate, she did much better than the average ovarian cancer patient, living eight more years, many of those cancer free. During those eight years, cycling continued to be one of our favorite things to do. But that was later. Sometime during the 16 months she was too sick to ride, my riding virtually stopped as well. So how is this different from weight training and swimming and running, other forms of exercise which I started and abandoned? As I have confessed on this blog more than once, in many ways, it wasn't. The biggest way it was different is that I eventually restarted cycling on a regular basis and have continued doing so for ten years and counting. Another way it is different is that virtually stopped and stopped are not quite the same thing. During those 16 months, I rode five rides, ranging from 20 to 35 miles in length. In retrospect, I am amazed I could do that. My first five mile ride in August of 2008 left me exhausted. Within a month or two I was easily completing 20, 30 and 40 mile rides, which is the expected result of training, but what was unexpected, at least to me, was that the ability to do those longer rides didn't go away even after six months off the bike. I have no explanation for that.

A final reason that cycling was different from my other attempts at exercising is that although Agi and I stopped riding, we never stopped talking about riding. One of the reasons I had stopped riding was that at some point I had ridden over a pothole which damaged the rear rim on my Bianchi making it unrideable. I was both discouraged by the amount of maintenance my Bianchi required and unable to decide what I wanted to do about it: should I try to keep it in its historically pristine but fragile condition or should I make it less authentic but more practical by replacing the sew-up rims with clinchers, for example [2]? Agi was also unhappy with her old Gitane, a relatively low end bike to begin with, so our conversations began to turn towards getting new, matching bikes. As I began to research what we should buy, I was overwhelmed by the extent to which bicycles had changed since 1973, the last time we had purchased a bike [3]. I finally found two bikes that looked vaguely familiar to me, the Bianchi Volpe and the Surly Crosscheck. We were unable to find a Volpe in my wife's size (they exist, just not in the bike shops of Houston) so we purchased a matched pair of Surlys, and the rest is history. 

We got our new Surlys in April of 2010 and went out for a ride the day we brought them home. In May, Agi had her last cycle of chemotherapy; her cancer treatment was over. In June, we were both in San Diego for business and took the opportunity to rent bikes and ride out to a scenic lighthouse. By July we were ready for a week long cycling vacation in Maine with our two boys. In September, we decided to start checking out some of the local cycling resources, and went on a short, easy ride offered by the Houston Bicycle Club. In November, we picked up a book on the best rides in and around Houston and started trying some of them. Most weekends we would manage to take a local ride or two together. From the day we came home with our Surlys to the end of 2010 was 35 weeks. For 28 of those weeks I managed to reach the minimal medical  recommendation of 150 minutes of cycling and for 14 of those weeks I exceeded the optimal 300 minutes [4]. One more important thing happened in 2010. Agi believed that the only way to get the best food was by shopping for different items at different stores. Her favorite store for produce was a farmers market-like Houston institution known as Canino's which was ten miles from where we lived. In October of 2010 we did our first Canino's shopping trip by bike, officially making us utility cyclists.

In 2011 Agi and I continued with our weekend fun rides and continued bicycling to Canino's to shop for produce. Baylor College of Medicine where I worked was a big supporter of The Tour de Pink, a charity ride which raised money for breast cancer patients. In September of 2011, Agi and I rode the Tour de Pink for the first time, a ride that would become an annual event for us. In June, our younger son Matthew graduated from the University of Chicago. Because he had so much stuff to bring home and because Agi and I loved long road trips together, we drove from Houston to Chicago, attended the graduation, stuffed our 2006 Honda CR/V (which I am still driving) full of Matthew's stuff and drove him back to Houston.Two weeks later, we gave him our other car, a 2005 Toyota Corolla (which he is still driving) as a graduation present, and I drove it with him to California so he could start his new job in Silicon Valley. Our plan was to replace the car we had given Matthew with a new one. However, we soon found we could get by fairly well with one car. Still, it was a little inconvenient, especially if we forgot to plan ahead, so in March of 2012, Agi started commuting to work by bicycle. Once she started, she loved it! It was actually faster than driving and had the advantage of providing her with regular exercise. Between that and the shopping trips to Canino's our utility cycling cred was growing.

Once we were in California, Matthew and I took some time to visit friends and family, including Paul, my friend from High School who started this whole thing, and my parents. Although it was lovely for Matthew and I to see Mom and Dad, it was also a shock. We knew Mom had been having some problems with her health but she was much worse than we expected. She wasn't thinking clearly, she kept losing weight, and none of her doctors seemed to know what was wrong with her. At the end of July we all came back for Dad's 90th birthday party. Tragically, Mom could not be there because she was in the hospital. She remained in the hospital through most of August. I flew to California when she was released to help her move from the hospital back home and to get her and my Dad settled. It was clear to both me and my sister (who lived near them) that Dad could not manage this on his own, especially once Mom was finally diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis and put into home hospice care, so we agreed to take turns living with them. From then until Mom's death in February of 2012 I spent about half my time in California caring for Mom and Dad and half back home in Texas. Obviously, this impacted my cycling dramatically. In December my wife and kids bought me a California bike, a 2007 Bianchi Volpe so that I could squeeze in the occasional ride while I was caring for Mom and Dad. That Volpe is currently the favorite of all my bikes. At the end of February 2012, Mom died.

In 2011 I retired [5]. (It was only because I retired I was able to spend so much time with Mom and Dad.) My first official day of retirement was September 1, but I had so many accumulated vacation days that my last day at work was in July, and thereafter, I cycled all week long. Even before I retired I rode more often than Agi did, but once I was free to ride during the week, my cycling career bifurcated, weekend bicycling with Agi, weekday cycling on my own. Being on my own, I started asking myself, "What now?" After browsing the Internet to find out what was going on in cycling in this Brave New World, I discovered Randonneuring [1] and for three to four years that became my obsession. In August, I decided to prepare for a 200K (124 mile) brevet. That preparation was interrupted by Mom's illness, but before it was I was able to ride enough to realize that I didn't know what I was doing. I was increasing the length of my training rides too quickly and finding I could not complete them. 

Sadly, as soon as Mom died, Dad started to decline. Now I was flying out to California to care for him. At first, the trips were not nearly as frequent or long as they had been for Mom so I was able to prepare for and successfully complete a 200K Brevet in May of 2012. While I had been caring for Mom, Agi had been searching for a training book for me. This time, I followed a training plan from the book she found and that allowed me to complete my first brevet. In May of 2012 I posted on this blog for the first time, two weeks to the day after that brevet. That timing was no coincidence. The excitement I felt at having become a randonneur made me want to blog about it, and as a result, the meager two brevets I completed resulted in a disproportionate amount of discussion of randonneuring on this blog. Randonneuring was one part of my cycling I didn't share with Agi which accounts for her getting relatively little attention. In reality, the role Agi played in my cycling was vastly more important than that played by randonneuring.

What I didn't learn from that book, either because it was not explained well or because I did not read it carefully, is what to do after the brevet. Believe it or not, after resting a week (good) I assumed that I should just start doing the longest training ride I had worked up to, 90 miles, as my weekly long ride (bad). That lasted two weeks before becoming unsustainable. I then assumed I should just start over from the beginning, and so did that in an attempt to prepare for a second 200K brevet in November. Following that plan, I was able to ramp up to 80 miles, but was unable to complete a 90 mile ride the week after so had to abandon that brevet attempt. In an effort to figure out what went wrong, I started reading other training books, and for some reason became enamored with Greg Maffetone's "The Big Book of Endurance Training and Racing." I purchased a heart rate monitor and started doing a training ride that was based on my interpretation of that book, a ride that I called a MAF test

MAF tests continued to be a major component of my training until I moved to California five years later. One thing that made the MAF tests work so well for me was a unique Houston resource, the Rice University Bike Track. That track was located only a few miles from my home and was on Agi's commute to work so that I could keep her company on her ride to work and then do my workout on the track. Physically, the track was not much, it was just some painted lines in one of the Rice University parking lots. What made it special is that the parking lot was unused most of the time (it was used during football games) and so the track was blocked off from cars, making it about the safest place imaginable to ride. It was a third of a mile around, there was no banking on the turns, but for me, that was not a limitation, I could ride it as fast my legs and lungs would allow. My version of the MAF test required me to ride for 45 minutes, maintaining my heart rate between 130 and 140 beats per minute. If I tried to do that in traffic, the distraction of watching my bike computer would have almost certainly caused me to have an accident. On the track, doing so was completely safe. So, the availability of the Rice Bike Track made MAF tests possible. That is why when I moved to California, I could not continue riding MAF tests. The Rice Track was also a great place for intervals and time trials. 

As my next 200K attempt approached in May of 2013, I started adding long rides to the MAF test rides. I increased the length of these long rides by 10% each week, and by doing that was able to complete that second 200K, riding it faster and more comfortably than I had the first. However, when I tried to do a third brevet in November, I ran into the same problem I did the year before, I could work my way up to an 80 mile training ride but could not complete a 90 mile ride the following week. To this day I am not sure why that was. I have a bunch of possible explanations but not enough data or understanding to decide which one to believe.

Meanwhile, Agi and I had either settled into a pattern or fallen into a rut, depending on how you want to look at it. She was biking to work. We were biking to Canino's for produce. Most weekends, we would go on one or two rides together, but always took the same three or four routes. Most of my weekday cycling was around and around on the Rice Track, a mixture of MAF tests, intervals, time trials, or social rides when I happened to bump into one of my Rice Track buddies. I hadn't yet given up on riding brevets, but in 2014 my local randonneuring club didn't offer a 200K in May so I decided to wait until the November 200K, or that was my plan. Unfortunately, Dad's health continued to deteriorate, and so my efforts to prepare for that brevet were interrupted by trips to California. I worked around those and felt like I was on track to complete that brevet when a medical emergency had me in California caring for Dad instead, so no brevet in 2014. Dad's illness continued to progress and he died in July of 2015

Agi was finding my absence during all those trips to California emotionally difficult so I looked for ways to spend more time with her when I was in Texas. We rode the Bluebonnet Express, another charity ride, in February of 2015 and we did a second, longer ride with the Houston Bike Club in March. As Agi and I rode through the Hill Country of Texas together, having been dropped by the other Houston Bike Club riders, Agi turned to me and asked for a favor: "Could you quit riding brevets and instead focus on rides we can do together?" That was the end of my career as a randonneur. A month later her cancer came back. Recurrent ovarian cancer is not curable but it is treatable, so we hoped for several more years together. We were given two. Chemotherapy is never easy, but if you looked at our cycling schedule or at Agi's work schedule, you would never have guessed anything unusual was going on, at least at first. We rode the Tour de Pink that September, but it was for the last time. By the summer of 2016 she was feeling bad enough that it was difficult for her to throw her leg over her road bike with its traditional diamond frame so we bought her an urban commuter with a step through frame to allow her to continue biking to work. November 30, 2016, she commuted to work, and that was to be the last bike ride of her life. By December, we started what became a discouraging series of emergency hospital visits. There were still some good times ahead, but by May she was transferred to home hospice care and on June 10, 2017, she died. It goes without saying that Agi's illness impacted my cycling, but I rode when I could, and ten days after her death I reached 30,000 miles of riding since my restart in 2008. Three quarters of this story is now over.

So how did all these ups and downs affect my cycling schedule in terms of health and fitness? RUSA, the governing organization for randonneuring in the United States, suggests that randonneurs should average at least 5,000 miles a year of cycling. I reached a peak of 5,571 miles during the year between July 2012 to July  2013, but by February of 2014 my average had fallen below that magic 5,000 never to return. I'm not completely sure why that that was, perhaps it was all the MAF tests which are relatively short rides, but if I had been able to attempt a brevet in November of 2014, I would have been considered underprepared. The medical community has a lower bar. They divide exercise intensity into three levels, light, moderate, and vigorous. Bicycling is considered either moderate or vigorous depending on how you ride. To be conservative, I have always counted cycling as moderate exercise. The Medical community wants me to engage in a minimum of 150 minutes a week of moderate exercise, and says that ideally I should up that to 300 minutes. Most weeks I managed to easily exceed that 300 minute recommendation. Because of week to week variation, I have started tracking a running average of minutes per week over the last year. That weekly average peaked at 494 in July of 2013 and stayed above 400 until May of 2015. In February of 2017, during some of the worst of Agi's illness, my average weekly minutes finally fell below the magic number of 300.

Losing Agi is the hardest thing I have ever experienced. I couldn't imagine how I could recover from that until I finally accepted that I couldn't, the old me was gone forever, my only recourse was to create a new me. After the burying and mourning and selling of the house and Hurricane Harvey and getting rid of all the stuff that I wasn't taking to California and arranging to have the rest moved, I hopped into my trusty CR/V and started the long road trip from Houston, Texas to San Carlos, California. The drive was not nearly as much fun without Agi by my side. As a result of all these disruptions, there were six weeks where I did no significant riding and my yearly averages continued to fall. But soon, I had started defining some new go-to rides in my new home state of California and resumed a regular schedule. A few weeks after moving into my new home in San Carlos I reached a low of 1967 miles a year and 180 minutes a week, then slowly, those averages started creeping back up. 

As of today, I have ridden 40,336 miles total, 9,776 which have been ridden since I arrived in California, so California now represents a significant chunk of my second cycling career. I seem to have reached a steady state where I am averaging between 300 and 350 minutes a week of riding and 3,000 to 3,500 miles a year. Back in September of 2016, Agi and I attended the 50th reunion of my High School bicycle club, the Modesto Roadmen. One of the other attendees was Roger, who showed up with this his gorgeous 1970s Singer touring bike. As I was admiring it, he urged me to bring my 1960 Bianchi Specialissima to the next running of Eroica California, a combination group ride and bike show centered around vintage bikes. Eroica California is held in April, and given Agi's advancing illness, attending in 2017 was out of the question. After I moved to California, I planned attending in 2018 but developed pneumonia and was unable to make it. Roger was disappointed by my absence so suggested that in May, I drive the seven hours up to his place (California is a big state) and ride with him in The Art of Survival, a metric century (100 kilometer/62 mile) group bike ride, which I did. This gave me the fun challenge my California cycling had been looking for, or rather, two challenges. The first was demonstrably achievable, to ride a metric century. I had just done one, would I do another? It was now my turn to suggest a ride so I started looking for one and came across just the ticket, the Golden Hills metric century. It's biggest attraction for Roger and me was that it was held on the roads we used to ride together back in the days of The Modesto Roadmen. 

The second challenge Roger set for me was more aspirational, one that I have only achieved in the most minimal way possible, a metric century a month. The closest I have come to that goal is back to back metric centuries in October and November of 2019, but I get ahead of myself. In April of 2019, I and my 1960 Bianchi Specialissima finally made it to Eroica. The following month I once again rode the Art of Survival with Roger, I rode a short version The Death Ride with my son Michael, and repeated Golden Hills as well. The new me in my new life in California is not only meeting his medically mandated riding goals, he is finding ways to have fun as well. My plan for 2020 was to do the same, and if possible, more. My reality was the COVID-19 pandemic. All group rides were cancelled in 2020. Will COVID-19 ever be controlled well enough that we can go back to the way things were or are group rides, at least for the elderly like me, a thing of the past?

So what does the future hold? I confess, 40,000 is pretty lame as round numbers go, wouldn't it have made more sense to wait until I had ridden 50,000 miles to post this? There were three reasons I didn't wait. First, I didn't want to. Second, my previous summary was at 20,000 miles, so it seemed logical to write another post after another 20,000 miles. Third, at my age, it would be presumptuous to assume I have 10,000 more miles in me. "Don't wait until tomorrow to do what you can do today" is advice that becomes more urgent for me as each year goes by. That third reason is probably the most important. And yet, there is no reason for despair. While it would be presumptuous to assume I will be riding 10,000 more miles, it would be silly to assume that I will not. If I am able to continue riding and if I ride at my current level, I would reach 50,000 miles in September of 2023 at which time I will be 74 years old. At my age, time is most definitely not my friend, but it is not impossible that, even riding against that headwind, I might still be able to get a bit more fit than I am today. Will the Zombie make it to 50,000 miles, and if he does, what cycling adventures will he have enjoyed? Stay tuned to find out.




Footnotes


[1] Randonneuring is a subsport within cycling which consists of a series of endurance challenges. The most common rides are 200, 300, 400, 600, and 1200 kilometers long, which translates to between 124 and 744 miles. These rides must be completed within a specified length of time, 13.5 and 90 hours for the 200 and 1200 kilometer rides respectively, with the others falling in between. These rides are referred to as brevets. RUSA is the governing organization for randonneuring in the United States and you can read all about this sport on their website.

[2] This is a debate I have with myself even today.

[3] We did purchase a 10 speed bike for my older son in 1993, but as luck would have it, we purchased one of the last of the old style bikes and failed to notice how different all the other bikes in the store had become.

[4] Besides cycling, Agi walked regularly and did aerobics and yoga at work. For me, cycling was my only exercise.

[5] Agi never did retire. Her last official day as an employee of the University of Texas (albeit a sick day) was the day she died.