How far is too far?

[yello]

Chating to a club mate this morning and he was asking about my LEL training. So we got to talking about long rides in general and he said he wasn't interested in cycling for over 4 or 5 hours (say 100km). I've been thinking about that comment since and I can see why someone would say that; a life balance thing. I've done 300km rides but they are a chore, not what I'd call enjoyable after 200, and it's 15 or 16 hours in the saddle for me.

I reckon there's a degree of obsession that one must posses to ride the big distances; into sleep deprivation etc. If it's your thing cool, go for it, but I don't reckon it's for me. I'll do LEL because I've signed up for it now and the training's on course but, in all seriousness, I can't see me riding further than 200km in future.

 

[PaulB]

Very interesting question and one which I have a lot of interest in. One of my best mates is one of Britain's best ever road and fell runners and he has very definite views on this and I can see his point of view. He will only run distances under 15 miles (but he is phenomenally good at them) and absolutely refuses to even contemplate things like the Bob Graham (42 lake district peaks and a minimum of 72 miles within 24 hours) as he personally knew many, many people who successfully completed rounds and died suddenly at an age you would not expect in someone so apparently fit. He reckons, and I agree knowing that awful feeling you get when you've gone too far and done too much, that your body is letting you know you've reached your limit. It's not big or macho to go beyond that; in fact, it's a bit daft. I know that the closest I ever came to death - a time I was totally convinced I was going to die and my life flashed in front of me - came during such an extreme race and that's why I'll let others do the 300k events and above from now on.

 

[yello]

Yes, absolutely Paul. I didn't mention the health aspects but I'd agree with you. There's no doubt you're asking a helluva lot of the body, whether it's too much or not must be an individual thing.

You've reminded me of someone on the Audux UK list (or was it yacf???) saying they'd ridden 200s for years but just could never manage further. I can get my head around that.

 

[Kablinsky]

I knew I shouldn't have started reading this thread.

 

[jimboalee]

Five o'clock in the morning through to nine o'clock in the evening is enough for me. 320km.

 

[MacB]

I've now done 13.5 hrs saddle time between sleeps, about 22hrs from leaving to arriving home, felt ok but it was very leisurely pacewise.

 

[ontheroadtofrance]

My personal opinion is cycling should be enjoyable and not a leg churner although sometime its good for a different challenge once in a while. You can see many different things when out doing 100km ride or even 160km ride. Everyones body knows there limits and it will stop at that.
The professionals in any sport makes it look easy thats because there used to it and do it for a living.
I have only been cycling nearly a year and have done mainly 100km audaxs and i even then push myself to the limit.

 

[rich p]

Horses for courses - there is no right or wrong. When I ran, I did distances from 10k up to the Bob Graham and felt great. In fact the BG gives me pleasure still when I think about it.
Now, as a cyclist, I prefer to enjoy shorter distances but I can see why people might like the challenge of longer ones.
There was always an element of pushing the boundaries and getting out of life's comfort zone for me, which I probably would have transferred to cycling if I'd got into it younger. It's not for everyone but modern life can be a bit cosy and people do things to create a bit of adventure.

 

[yello]

True, there's no right answer. Each to their own etc. Just yello's idle musings on the why of it all I guess. And wondering whether it's at all healthy (physically and/or mentally) to do ultras and the like.

 

[MacB]

True, there's no right answer. Each to their own etc. Just yello's idle musings on the why of it all I guess. And wondering whether it's at all healthy (physically and/or mentally) to do ultras and the like.

I would guess that really going too far could do permanent damage but most would stop long before that. Those prepared to reach, and exceed, their limits run some very real dangers.

 

[boydj]

It's a bit like running marathons - doing the event gives your body a bit of a pasting, but getting fit enough to be able to do these long-distance events has enormous health benefits. I got into cycling through triathlon after realising that it would be sensible not to run any more marathons, so I still get the benefits of endurance training, without the long-term damage.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

surely there is a case for saying too far combined with too hard is what does the damage? dunno why but this has brought to mind the shock I felt when reminded the other day that Beryl Burton died of a coronary whilst on her bike at 'only' 59 years old.

 

[Noodley]

NHS wards everywhere are just over-run with cyclists and runners pushing themselves 'too hard'. Not a bed to be had anywhere I'd heard.

Obese, alcoholic smokers just can't get through the doors (maybe cos they are obese ) because of them...

 

[bicyclos]

There are two bounderies in cycling "Pleasure and Sport". Or in other words "Pleasure or Pain". In both bounderies you can acheive your goals and fantasies, I take heed from the chineese proverb. You only have so many heart beats in your lifetime...use them sparingly

Happy cycling..........what ever floats your boat

 

[Aperitif]

Here's a ride mooted for Saturday...an apposite example!
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34476