Only Contador knows the answer to that question but here’s what it looked like to someone watching the race on TV.  In an earlier post on hill climbing techniques I wrote that a goal to strive for when climbing is to maintain a steady effort over the entire climb.  When the gradient steepens, you drop down into a smaller gear; when the gradient relaxes, you gear up into a higher gear.  Shifting into a higher gear on a climb  may seem counter intuitive and mentally it can be hard to do.  This is especially true at  or near the top of the climb when your legs are screaming in agony and your oxygen debt is high.  When the gradient relaxes it brings relief from the suffering and you welcome the relief.

If you watch the video of the last 100 meters of the Collada de la Gallina finish it looks like Contador didn’t shift up into a higher gear when the gradient relaxed near the top of the climb.  He’s spinning like mad when he looks over his shoulder and sees Valverde and Rodriguez closing on him and he’s in too small a gear to generate enough power to accelerate away from his pursuers.  Valverde and Rodriguez are in a bigger gear and have too much speed built up for Contador to match.  It looked like Contador thought he had the stage won (as did everyone watching except Valverde and Rodriguez), accepted the relief when the gradient relaxed, and paid the price.

Contador is much too talented and skilled a rider to either not know how to finish a climb or be incapable of finishing a climb.  I think he just made a mistake.  Did he make the mistake because he hasn’t been riding in competition while he served out his suspension?  I don’t know.  I do know this, though.  If you want to be the rider that maintains a strong and steady effort to the top and over the top of a climb when it counts, you have to ride like that on the climbs when it doesn’t count.

When you ride your bike your body loses water in the form of sweat. This is a good thing because the evaporation of sweat from the skin is the main way your body sheds heat while you’re on the bike. Without that cooling the increase in body core temperature from the heat generated by your working muscles would kill you fairly rapidly.

Sweating is good but the fluid loss that comes from sweating is not so good. When you lose water through sweat you become dehydrated. At extreme levels dehydration can lead to heat stroke which can be life threatening. However, even relatively mild levels dehydration can have negative effects on cycling performance.

How dehydration affects your body

For the endurance cyclist the main effect of dehydration is to decrease the volume of blood in the system. This has two major consequences and both of them are bad.

First, a decrease in blood volume reduces the body’s ability to shed heat and thus leads to an increase in core temperature. This works in two ways. The main way the body sheds heat during exercise is through sweating. When blood volume is decreased through dehydration sweating decreases because the water in sweat is derived from blood plasma. You can’t sweat it out if it’s not there in the first place.

In addition to sweating, the body sheds excess heat by radiation and conduction if the air temperature is lower than the body temperature. When body temperature rises the blood vessels near the surface of the skin expand (vasodilation). This brings more of the blood into close contact with the surface of the body so that heat carried by the blood can be lost through conduction and radiation. A decrease in blood volume decreases the amount of blood that can be brought into contact with the body’s surface thereby partially offsetting the benefits of vasodilation.

The second negative effect of the decrease in blood volume caused by dehydration is that the blood becomes thicker or more viscous. The heart has to work harder to pump the thicker fluid through the body. Blood flow becomes more sluggish. During diastole (the resting phase when the heart fills with blood) the heart may not completely fill with blood so that the volume of blood pumped with each heartbeat declines. Blood flow throughout the body declines and blood flow to the working muscles is critical for the cyclist because it brings fuel to the muscle in the form of glucose, and carries away waste materials and heat.

How dehydration affects performance

Dehydration and increase in body temperature are separate factors that have independent effects on athletic performance. They also interact with each other to decrease performance. It’s helpful to keep in mind how both of these factors are affecting performance both individually and in combination.

A loss of as little as 2% body weight (3 lbs. for a 150 lb. person) can negatively affect athletic performance. This negative effect increases as the amount of time spent performing the exercise increases. A study carried out with runners showed that a roughly 2% loss in body weight due to dehydration produced approximately a 3% loss in performance over 1500 meters and a 5% loss in performance over 5K or 10K meters. A loss of 5% body weight through dehydration (7.5 lbs. for a 150 lb. person) has been shown to produce approximately a 30% loss in performance.

VO2 max is a measure of the maximum amount of oxygen a person can use during exercise and is widely used as a general measure of aerobic fitness. Studies carried out in cool laboratory environments have shown a 5% decrease in VO2 max with a 3% decline in body weight through dehydration. The negative effect of dehydration on VO2 max is increased in the warm or hot environments the cyclist usually experiences. Decreases in VO2 max are most probably caused by the decrease in blood volume produced by dehydration that was discussed earlier. Note also that increased body temperature can reduce VO2 max even when individuals are fully hydrated. In other words, dehydration and increased body temperature act alone and in combination to decrease VO2 max.

Whether or not it is accompanied by a decrease in VO2 max, dehydration produces a decline in endurance as measured by the time it takes to reach exhaustion. A loss of 5% body weight through dehydration can decrease endurance even for low intensity exercise (e.g., low intensity walking). The loss in endurance increases markedly as either the intensity of exercise increases or the level of dehydration increases.

Endurance is also affected by core temperature; as core temperature increases, endurance decreases. Because dehydration has a large effect on the body’s ability to shed heat, core temperature rises more quickly and endurance decreases more quickly as dehydration increases. In addition, dehydration produces a lower tolerance for increased core temperatures. Exhaustion occurs at lower core temperatures for dehydrated individuals as opposed to hydrated individuals.

As if all that isn’t enough, there is evidence that suggests that dehydration in combination with increased core temperature my cause glucose to be burned more quickly and less efficiently in working muscles. Glucose is the fuel that powers muscle activity, it’s almost always in short supply for the endurance cyclist, and the evidence suggests it’s used less efficiently when dehydration is accompanied by increased core temperature (which it almost always is). You’re trying hard to keep going and avoid the bonk by paying attention to what you eat while you’re riding, you are always short on fuel, and dehydration is causing you to burn the limited fuel you have available less efficiently. Not good.

Stay hydrated.

Over hydration or hyponatremia

Is it possible to drink too much water? Yes, the condition is called hyponatremia and in rare cases it can be fatal. When the body is over saturated with water the sodium in the body becomes diluted. When this happens individual cells throughout the body swell with the result that a variety of bodily functions may be disrupted.

At present we don’t know as much about athletically induced hyponatremia as we would like. The condition was first described in 1981 and much of the data that exists about hyponatremia is drawn from samples of convenience taken at popular athletic events such as marathons and reports from the military documenting the consequences of water consumption during training. The problem with samples of convenience is that important variables are left uncontrolled that need to be controlled in order to draw sound and justified conclusions from the data.

Hyponatremia is diagnosed based on the level of sodium in the blood and measuring serum sodium level is relatively easy. The problem is that the serum sodium level that is widely accepted as indicating hyponatremia may be accompanied by a variety of symptoms ranging from confusion or seizures, through headaches and stomach distress, to, in many cases, no symptoms at all.

Hyponatremia began to be commonly observed along with the rise of marathon running as a popular hobbyist sport. In order to prevent dehydration and heat stroke race organizers frequently stress the importance of staying hydrated during the run and they provide frequent water stations along the route. In addition, manufacturers of “sport drinks” often market their products at open running events and pay the organizers to make their drink available to runners along the route.

Under these circumstances you might expect relatively inexperienced hobbyist runners to drink too much during their run. There appears to be evidence that this is the case. Hyponatremia has been observed to be much more common among inexperienced runners who train at slower speeds and take more time to complete the marathon.

At present, it is unclear whether women are more susceptible to hyponatremia than men. Some studies suggest they are, other, better controlled studies, suggest there’s no difference. Also, there is no evidence that the sodium content of many “sports drinks” serves to prevent hyponatremia .

How can you tell if you’re drinking too much water when you ride? A rough method is to weigh yourself right before and right after your ride. If you gained weight and drank a lot of fluids during the ride, you were probably over hydrating.

In the absence of medical complications, avoiding hyponatremia is basically a matter of common sense. Anecdotal reports in the medical literature about people who experienced extreme hyponatremia include very slow runners who took very long times to finish marathons and who reported drinking at every water station along the way and a woman who prepared for her marathon by drinking 10 liters of water (!!) the night before. Use your head for something besides a place to keep your helmet while you ride and don’t drink excessive amounts of fluids and you shouldn’t have a problem. Most important, don’t become dehydrated because you’re afraid of hyponatremia.

(Analyze, plan, test, evaluate, revise) iterate, train, execute.  Win.  That’s what Team Sky’s Tour de France looked like to me.  I thought it was brilliant. But more than that, I thought the entire Sky team carried out their Tour de France with integrity, dignity and class.

Bradley Wiggins showed himself to be everything you would want in a team and race leader.  He didn’t just ride for himself, he rode for his team.  When was the last time you saw the man in the yellow jersey at the front of the entire peloton going under the 1K flag on the final lap around the Champs-Elysees leading out his team’s sprinter?  Rather than ride safely in the peloton Wiggins performed the same service for Cavendish on Stage 18′s sprint finish the day before the final time trial that Wiggins needed to cement his overall victory.

When Cadel Evans (who was still in contention as one of Wiggins’ main rivals) flatted because some moron threw nails on the road on the Mur de Péguère, Wiggins tried to slow the peloton down so that Evans could catch up.

In his press comments Wiggins always praised his team.  While this is the standard response riders give to the press, Wiggins appeared to mean it, unlike some others who sound like they are reciting a memorized script.  Moreover, Wiggins appeared to be genuinely pleased on the road when his teammates did well.  While he showed triumphant emotion at the finish of the penultimate day’s time trial when he locked up the Tour victory, he never engaged in self-conscious displays of ego or self-aggrandizement. Compare Wiggins demeanor with Thomas Voeckler’s seemingly self-absorbed “Adore Me. Worship Me” freewheel to the line in his terrific Stage 16 victory, or Peter Sagan’s self-conscious what-victory-display-should-I-do-today-to-draw-attention-to-myself behavior during the first week of the Tour.

Wiggins’ behavior reflected that of his team.  After a foolish tweet by Chris Froome’s girlfriend, the media reacted like a bunch of hysterical little girls with their panties in a twist about internal division within Team Sky or about Sky sacrificing Froome for Wiggins.  Team Sky responded in a way that I wish more people and organizations would when the media creates ridiculous tempests in teapots.  They basically told the media they were being silly and then disengaged and ignored them.  The TV commentators’ indignant and self-righteous “We’re not making this up!” response was hilarious and seemed an apt demonstration of just how lame the media can be.

As for Froome, when asked about his role on the team, he appeared to answer honestly when he said he thought he had a chance to win the Tour, not taking that chance and possibly becoming the first British rider to win the Tour was a personal sacrifice, and it was a sacrifice he was going to make because he was there to ride for the team and the team was there to win the tour with Wiggins.  Of much more importance, he rode the truth of what he said.  Some interpreted his waiting for Wiggins on the Peyragudes as Froome humiliating Wiggins by showing the world that he was the stronger rider.  What I saw was a loyal rider supporting his team leader and doing exactly what he said he was there to do.  After watching him in this Tour de France, if I was putting together a professional cycling team I would take one Chris Froome over ten Frank Schlecks on the basis of personal demeanor and integrity alone.

I thought that throughout the 2012 Tour de France Bradley Wiggins, Chris Froome and Team Sky behaved with irreproachable dignity, integrity and class. They gave professional cycling exactly what it needed after years of doping allegations and controversy. Brilliant.

How the body keeps cool

“Normal” body temperature is a slippery concept because many factors such as the time of the day, how temperature is measured, your state of athletic training, and where you are in your menstrual cycle if you are a woman (among other things) affects body temperature. For most cycling purposes, exact measures of normal body temperature along with exact measures of safe increases in body temperature aren’t very useful. You’re not going to know what your body temperature is while you’re riding because you’re not going to be taking rectal temperature measurements while you’re on the bike. Also, it doesn’t really matter what constitutes a “safe” increase in body temperature because you are going to be stressing your body’s ability to maintain that safe level when you ride.

The human body is a homeostatic system. This means it adapts to changing environmental circumstances in order to maintain certain physical and physiological parameters within acceptable boundaries. One of the most important of these parameters is core temperature. Combating heat and humidity is mainly about keeping core temperature down.

Our bicycles are extraordinarily efficient machines. Under optimal circumstances approximately 99% of the energy put into the pedals is transferred into forward motion; only 1% is lost. Unfortunately, our bodies are not nearly as efficient. Approximately 75% of the energy generated by physical activity is lost as heat. The heat generated by our muscles raises body temperature when we exercise. The harder you go, the more heat you make and the more stress you place on your body to shed that heat and keep core temp down.

There are two main ways the human body sheds heat. When the temperature of the body is higher than the temperature of the surrounding environment heat is shed through conduction and radiation. Here’s how this works for the cyclist. Your working muscles generate a lot of heat. Much of this heat is transferred to the blood which carries it away from the working muscles. When blood temperature reaches a particular threshold, vasodilation (expansion of the blood vessels at the surface of the body) occurs which brings a larger proportion of the blood into close contact with the surface of the body where it can shed its heat to the surrounding environment. When you stand close to a person who has been exercising hard you can feel the heat coming off their body. That’s heat that has been shed through conduction and radiation.

Conduction and radiation can only reduce body heat if the surrounding environment is at a lower temperature than the body. If air temperature is higher than body temperature, the body takes on heat from the environment. If you are riding on a hot day, conduction and radiation aren’t going to be nearly sufficient to shed the heat you’re generating.

The second way the body sheds heat is through evaporative cooling. When core temp rises to a critical threshold, the sweat glands are triggered and sweat is produced on the surface of the skin. The sweat evaporates and the evaporation cools the body. Under most circumstances, and especially when it is hot outside, evaporative cooling is the main way the cyclist sheds heat.

How increased core temp can hurt you

When you exercise your core temp rises. When core temp rises you sweat. When you sweat you lose fluid. If you lose enough fluid you become dehydrated. Dehydration and overhydration are important issues for the cyclist that are taken up in the post Dehydration and Over Hydration (Hyponatremia) for the Cyclist.

Even low levels of dehydration can affect performance. Loss of 2% body weight through fluid loss has measurable negative effects on athletic performance. Holding fluid loss constant, the negative effects increase the longer you ride or the hotter it is when you ride. As fluid loss increases beyond 2% body weight., the negative effects of dehydration increases rapidly and markedly.  This is the good news.

The bad news is that loss of body fluids can produce severe dehydration and heatstroke. The symptoms include headache, nausea and vomiting, sweating stops or is severely reduced, very rapid breathing and heart rate, confusion, delirium, loss of consciousness, death. Heatstroke is a life threatening medical emergency. In a lifetime of athletic activity that has produced broken bones, snapped tendons, knocked out teeth, severe lacerations and several surgeries, the one time I suffered serious heatstroke (while running in competition) was – easily, hands down, no contest, and by far – the worst physical experience of my athletic life. You don’t want to go there, it’s terrible.

How all of this affects the cyclist

Heat is bad. As the air temperature rises, the difference between body and air temperature decreases which weakens or eliminates conduction and radiation as methods of shedding heat.

Humidity is worse. Evaporative cooling is the primary way humans shed heat and it becomes even more important when exercise is producing a lot of excess heat. Humidity is an index of the amount of water vapor in the air; the higher the humidity, the more the air is saturated with water. The more the air is saturated with water, the less water it can take on which means that sweat is less likely to evaporate. The body continues to produce sweat so that evaporative cooling can bring body temperature down, but the sweat rolls off the skin rather than evaporating and cooling the body.

The air flow produced by moving on the bike can be a help here. When you stand still and sweat the air around you becomes saturated and sweating produces less evaporative cooling. When you’re rolling on the bike, the air around you is constantly being refreshed with air that is less saturated.

Heat combined with humidity is the worst of all. High heat coupled with high humidity sabotages both of the body’s mechanisms for shedding heat. The high air temperature reduces or eliminates conduction and radiation and the high humidity reduces evaporative cooling.

What can you do about it?

First and foremost – HYDRATE. Drinking water won’t cool you directly but it will replace the fluid you’re losing to sweat. This is critical for avoiding dehydration and heatstroke. Don’t screw around with this. Heatstroke can kill you.

How much should you drink? It depends on how much fluid you are losing to sweat and this will vary as a function of many factors such as how hot it is and how hard you’re working. Don’t use feeling thirsty as an indicator of whether or not you need to drink. The body is relatively slow to send thirst and hunger signals. You will usually have lost 1% to 2% of your body weight in fluid loss before you get the thirsty signal. By that time you’re already losing the battle of shedding excess body heat. A common mantra for cyclists is “Drink before you’re thirsty.” It’s great advice. Drink small amounts often rather than large amounts less frequently.

It’s possible to overhydrate which can lead to a condition called hyponatremia where there are abnormally low levels of sodium in the body (the excess water dilutes the sodium). This can also be life threatening although it rarely is. When hydrating your goal is to continually replace the fluid you lose through sweating without going to extremes with either too much water or not enough. For the cyclist riding in heat and humidity it’s better to err on the side of limiting dehydration as opposed to limiting hyponatremia. Don’t prepare for riding by drinking liters of water beforehand and be sensible on the bike. A future post will look at hyponatremia in more detail.

Wear the right clothing. No clothing at all would be optimal but sunburn, chafing from the bicycle seat and indecency laws make that impractical.  If you’re not going to go nude, you want form fitting clothing that wicks moisture. Loose clothing traps air between the cloth and your skin which acts as insulation and reduces evaporative cooling. Wicking material moves the sweat from your skin to the air where it can evaporate and cool you. Cycling clothing has both of these properties so if you wear tight fitting cycling shorts and jerseys, you’re good. If you ride in a loose fitting cotton shirt, you’re asking for trouble when it’s hot and humid.

If you’re not racing, consider ramping down your work level on hot and humid days. If you ride at a slower pace, your leg muscles aren’t working as hard and are producing less excess heat.

If you have enough water, pour it on yourself. Evaporating sweat and water both produce evaporative cooling. Remember, though, that the water will do more to help you when it’s inside your body than when it’s on the outside. Don’t become dehydrated because you poured your water over your head.

HGH has been offered as something like a universal miracle drug for everything from building muscle mass and recovery from exercise to enhancing virility, curing depression and combating the effects of aging.  One of the ideas that is promoted by the HGH industry is that there is a two hour period after exercise, which is sometimes referred to as a “synergy window”, when consumption of  foods that are high in glucose or carbohydrates disrupts the release of HGH by the body and hence should be avoided because of all of the benefits claimed for HGH. A comment on our Eating After the Ride post  pointed out that the advice to consume a fairly large amount of carbohydrate in the first 30 to 40 minutes after exercise that is given in Eating After the Ride is in direct conflict with the recommendation to avoid carbohydrates during the Synergy Window.

Is this an important conflict that cyclists should take into account?  What can be said about the “synergy window” based on reputable research?  Are the claims made about the benefits of HGH accurate and reliable?  Should cyclists be concerned with HGH?

It is important to keep in mind that – like virtually every issue in the field of nutrition for athletes – knowledge about HGH that is based on well-designed and carefully carried out scientific research is a story in progress.  Much remains to be discovered about how chemical information carriers (i.e, hormones and neurotransmitters) affect function, how the human body processes nutrients and macronutrients (like carbs, fats and proteins), and how all of this affects exercise and athletic performance.

That being said, the HGH industry is a cesspool of outright fraud, ignorance, scams and ridiculous claims based on no scientific evidence whatsoever.  The problem isn’t that scientifically well-supported information about HGH is hard to come by; 20 minutes, google, and an open mind are about all it takes to at least raise the suspicion that many of the claims made about HGH on numerous websites and blogs are complete nonsense.  The problem is that too many people are making too much money selling quack nostrums to gullible people who are ignorant of the science involved and who aren’t willing to spend the time or effort to look beyond what the hucksters are pitching at them.

What about the concern that ingesting carbohydrates will interfere with the two hour HGH “synergy window”?

If, at the time of this writing, you google “synergy window” and “HGH”, you get several pages of hits from many, many websites and blogs that all reproduce the same text.  Many of these pages are headed “Two foods you should never eat after exercise”.  The text copied on all of these websites and blogs claims, among some other things, that sugars (i.e., carbohydrates) must be avoided during the two hour synergy window in order to reap the supposed benefits of increased  HGH production after exercise. This advice is accompanied by a citation to a well-designed and well-executed research study and gives the impression that the research study supports the claims being made about HGH, the “synergy window” and avoiding carbohydrates in the form of sugars after exercise.

The research cited in the “synergy window” blurb was carried out by S.A. Newsom and colleagues and appeared in the March 2010 Journal of Applied Physiology.  You can read it for yourself here.  The study contains research that may be of interest to cyclists and is described in detail in Eating After the Ride Part 2.

Our question here is how much support does the cited research give to the claims being made about HGH, the “synergy window” and avoiding carbohydrates after exercise?

The answer is – none whatsoever.

The Newsom study has nothing at all to do with HGH.  The investigators are interested in the consequences of replacing calories lost during exercise by ingesting either fats or carbohydrates after exercise.  They don’t consider, or even mention, HGH.

What about a two hour window after exercise?  In the study, participants ate meals with carefully controlled amounts of fats and carbohydrates 30 minutes, 5 hours and 10 hours after exercise.  Nothing was manipulated nor measured at a two hour interval.  Nothing can be concluded from this study about the consequences of eating or not eating carbs, fats, proteins or anything else during the two hours after exercise because the study doesn’t have anything to do with a two hour post exercise period.

In short, while the Newsom research contains much of interest to people who are engaged in regular exercise, it provides no support whatsoever for the claims about HGH, the so-called “synergy window”, or the advice to avoid carbs after exercise that appear on all of the websites and blogs that cite the research. The people who are posting this “synergy window” nonsense all over the internet either didn’t read the research paper they cite, read it and didn’t understand it, or read it, understood it and are making fraudulent claims based on it with the expectation that their readers won’t bother to check their source.

The websites telling you not to consume carbs after exercise because it will interfere with HGH have nothing  to offer in the way of scientific evidence to support their stories.  Does HGH provide some other benefits for cyclists? Or any other basically healthy person for that matter?

The first thing to keep in mind is that for HGH to have any effect at all, it must be taken intravenously. HGH is a peptide and peptides are broken down by gastric acid in the digestive tract which means that taking HGH orally is pointless.  It is most likely to be destroyed before it enters the bloodstream.  This is fairly elementary biochemistry and you would expect people who are recommending and selling dietary supplements to know it.  The HGH mongers apparently didn’t, however, and at first they were hawking HGH as a dietary supplement.  Now they are hawking “HGH releasers” which aren’t HGH but are supposed to trigger the release of HGH by the body.  What they are in fact selling are branched-chain amino acids which account for approximately 35% of the amino acids found in muscle proteins.  You can get a roughly equivalent amount of branched chain amino acids as are present in high-priced “HGH releasers” by eating a piece of steak.  There is no credible evidence that these so called “HGH releasers” have any of the beneficial effects claimed for them.  If you are taking HGH or an “HGH releaser” orally as a dietary suplement, you are throwing your money away on a scam.

When pressed for evidence by fraud litigation or by consumers who want evidence rather than unsubstantiated advertising claims before they take dietary supplements, the HGH industry has consistently pointed to a study published by D. Rudman and colleagues entitled “Effects of Human Growth Hormone in Men over 60 Years Old” in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 1990.  You can read the Rudman study for yourself here.

What Rudman et. al found was that a six month program of  high-dose intravenous injections of HGH reduced the percentage of body fat and increased the percentage of lean muscle mass and bone density in a group of men aged 61 to 81. This study has been so widely misunderstood, misinterpreted or used in support of outright fraudulent claims about HGH that the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine took the highly unusual step of attaching editorials written by Dr. Mary Lee Vance (who was the editor of NEJM when the Rudman study was originally published) and Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen (who was the editor when the decision to add the attachments was made) that pointed out that the research reported in the Rudman article does not providence evidence to support the claims about the benefits of HGH or “HGH releasers”  made by the people in the HGH industry who cite the study as scientific support for their products.  You can read Dr. Vance’s editorial here, and Dr. Drazen’s editorial here.

Subsequent research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (an Abstract can be found here) that has followed up on the Rudman study and which is cited in the Vance editorial has replicated Rudman’s results with regard to HGH producing a decrease in body fat and an increase in lean muscle mass.  While the Rudman study did not examine differences in muscle function as a consequence of HGH treatment the follow up study did and what was found is of great interest to cyclists who are considering taking HGH.  The increase in lean muscle mass was not accompanied by any increase in either strength or endurance (as measured by maximal oxygen uptake, i.e., VO(2)max) in women.  Strength increased slightly and VO(2)max increased in men but only if the HGH treatment was accompanied by testosterone injections.   HGH without testosterone produced increases in lean muscle mass but no increases in either strength or endurance.  Negative side effects, primarily diabetes and glucose intolerance, were frequent in both men and women who were administered HGH.

These results may sound encouraging for some body builders for whom the increase in muscle mass combined with a decrease in body fat (which makes the musculature easier to see) may contribute to the goal of displaying muscle development.  Body builders are essentially developing muscles to serve as decoration or ornament.  Their competition does not involve using muscle strength in any way and so the lack of increase in strength or endurance accompanied by the increase in muscle mass that is produced by HGH alone would not hurt them when they compete.  For athletes who are interesting in building stronger muscles as opposed to bigger muscles the story is entirely different.  For the cyclist, increased muscle mass that is not accompanied by an increase in strength or endurance is simply dead weight that has to be carried uphill.

So, what’s the story on HGH for cyclists?

HGH or “HGH releasers” taken as orally administered dietary supplements are scams.  There is no credible scientific evidence that these products have any of the benefits that are claimed for them.

Intravenous injection of HGH increases lean muscle mass without an increase in either endurance or strength.  It adds weight without improving function which is something every cyclist wants to avoid.

HGH injections that are accompanied by testosterone injections increase endurance and marginally increase strength in men.  While the increase in VO(2)max may be of value to competitive cyclists, the HGH injections have serious negative consequences such as the development of diabetes and glucose intolerance (which will more than offset the competitive benefits gained through HGH use).  HGH is also banned as a performance enhancing drug.  Patrick Sinkewitz tested positive for HGH and was the first rider banned from the pro peloton for HGH use.

For professional cyclists there is a temptation to inject HGH and hope to avoid a positive drug test.  For the non-professional cyclist there is no reason whatsoever to take HGH and many reasons to avoid it.

For cyclists, HGH is an epic fail

One piece of HGH-related nonsense about the so-called “synergy window” that has been copied and reproduced on many, many websites and blogs cites a study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology as evidence in support of its claims.  The research that is cited has nothing whatsoever to do with HGH or a two-hour post exercise window but it is relevant to concerns of cyclists who are concerned with what to eat after a ride.

The study was carried out by S.A. Newsom and colleagues. It is titled “Energy deficit after exercise augments lipid mobilization but does not contribute to the exercise-induced increase in insulin sensitivity” and you can read it for yourself here.  The investigators were interested in the consequences of replacing the energy stores burned during exercise with either fats or carbohydrates.  They carried out a carefully controlled study that involved different groups of experimental subjects engaging in a period of controlled exercise followed by the ingestion of carefully controlled meals and snacks for the rest of the day.  The investigators varied whether energy stores were replaced by carbs or fats and measured insulin sensitivity (an indicator of the degree to which the system is primed and ready to process glucose into glycogen) and lipid metabolism (an indicator of the extent to which adipose tissue, i.e., fat, is being mobilized or broken down) the following day.

Here’s what they did.

Nine men between 28 and 30 years of age participated in the study.  There were four experimental conditions and each participant took part in each of the four conditions over four different experimental sessions.

The following general procedure was carried out in each of the four experimental sessions:

*  Participants fasted over night and were admitted to the hospital where testing would take place the next morning.

*  After admission and a 30 minute rest period, oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production were measured.

*  This was followed by approximately 90 minutes of exercise in 3 of the 4 conditions.  The 4th condition was a control where participants did not exercise.  The exercise was split evenly between a treadmill and an exercise bike and each participant burned approximately 800 kilocalories (kcal) during the exercise period.  Oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production were measured at several points throughout the exercise period to insure participants were exercising at the required rate and expending the required amount of energy.

*  The participants ingested meals at periods of 30 minutes, 5 hours, and 10 hours after exercise.  The experimental manipulation was in the nutritional make-up of these meals.

* Three hours after the last meal all of the participants ingested an identical snack to control for any effects of the last food eaten.

*  The participants then spent the night at the hospital and a variety of physiological measures were taken the following morning.

There were four experimental conditions in the study.  These were:

1. A Control condition in which participants did not exercise.  Participants were fed meals that maintained their fat and carbohydrate balance.

2. A Balanced condition in which participants were fed enough carbohydrate to replace the glycogen lost during exercise and enough fats to replace the fats lost during exercise.

3. A Low Carbohydrate condition in which participants were fed meals that did not contain enough carbohydrate to replace the glycogen burned during the exercise period.  The total energy loss of the exercise (kcal burned from both fats and glycogen stores in the body) was offset by increasing the amount of fat in the meals.

4. A Low Energy condition in which participants were fed enough carbohydrate to replace the glycogen lost during exercise but were not fed enough fat to replace the fat burned during exercise.

There are two important comparisons to consider with regard to the consequences of failing to replace either fats or glycogen (by ingesting carbs) after exercise.

(A) In the Control condition no exercise takes place and energy balance is maintained by replacing energy lost (during rest) to fat metabolism with fat in the diet and energy lost to burning glucose with carbohydrate in the diet.  In the Low Carbohydrate condition energy balance is also maintained but it is accomplished by shorting the amount of carbohydrate in the diet and replacing the missing carbohydrates with fats.  Testing the next day showed that the amount of glycogen stored in muscle tissue was significantly lower in the Low Carbohydrate condition than in the Control condition.  Insulin sensitivity was also higher in the Low Carbohydrate condition than in the Control condition.  This means that insulin was more active the following day in the Low Carbohydrate condition.  Insulin plays a critical role in converting blood glucose into glycogen that can be stored in the muscles (and liver) and the system would be expected to show higher sensitivity to insulin when it is in glycogen debt and operating to replace lost glycogen stores.

(B) In the Balanced condition exercise take place and energy balance is maintained by replacing energy lost (during exercise) to fat metabolism with fat in the diet and energy lost to burning glucose with carbohydrate in the diet. In the Low Energy condition energy lost to burning glucose is replaced by carbohydrates in the diet (in other words, muscle glycogen lost to exercise is completely replaced) but energy lost to burning fats is not.  Testing the next day showed no differences in muscle glycogen between the two groups.  However, there was an increase in plasma fatty acid mobilization and oxidation and an increase in plasma triacylglycerol concentration the next day in the Low Energy condition as compared to the Balanced condition.  This means that fat metabolism was higher in the Low energy group.

What does this mean for the active cyclist?

The results discussed in (A) above provide another source of evidence that failure to ingest enough carbohydrate following exercise results in lower stores of muscle glycogen the next day.  A deficit in muscle glycogen translates into less energy on the bike, lower performance levels, and an increased tendency to bonk on the ride.  The critical need to replace muscle glycogen after exercise is the basis for the recommendation made in Eating After the Ride to ingest a heavy carbohydrate load during the first 30 minutes after you get off the bike in order to take advantage of the brief period during which a high-efficiency glycogen storage process take place that allows blood glucose to be stored as muscle glycogen without the use of insulin.

Note that this study by Newsom et. al. provides evidence that muscle glycogen is depleted the day after exercise if carbohydrates are not consumed in sufficient quantity during the 12 hours or so after exercise.  Although the investigators made sure that participants were fed a meal withing 30 minutes of exercise, the study is not concerned with the brief period of enhanced, efficient glycogen storage that takes place immediately after exercise and provides no evidence one way or the other about the consequences of ingesting or failing to ingest sufficient carbohydrates immediately after exercise.

The results discussed in (B) provide evidence that fat metabolism is higher the day after exercise if fat intake in the hours after exercise is depressed.  This is of interest to cyclists who are concerned with losing weight.  Body fat is being burned at a higher rate the day after exercise if the fats burned during exercise are not replaced with fat in the diet.  Note that there is no indication here one way or the other whether the increased amount of fat metabolism shown the following day is sufficient to produce noticeable weight loss.  However, if you are interested in losing weight through the loss of body fat, increased levels of fat metabolism have to be better than no increase in fat metabolism in the long run.  Note also that fat metabolism was increased in the Low Energy condition even though carbohydrate intake was kept high enough to replace the muscle glycogen lost to exercise.  Taking in enough carbohydrate after exercise to replenish glycogen stores allows you to be ready for an exercise session the next day and does not stop fat metabolism that is breaking down body fat to supply energy.

In summary, what you eat after a ride makes a difference.  It isn’t the case that calories ingested from fats are equivalent to calories ingested from carbohydrates when replacing the calories burned during exercise.  Eating carbs after a ride replaces lost muscle glycogen, gets you ready to ride the next day, and does not stop fat metabolism.  Refraining from eating fats after a ride increases the burning of body fat the day after the ride and does not interfere with glycogen storage.  The take home message seems simple: Replace glycogen by ingesting carbs after a ride; metabolize fat and possibly lose weight by not eating fats after a ride.

On Thursday July 17th yet another high-profile cyclist was thrown out of the Tour de France when Riccardo Ricco was taken into custody by the French gendarmes after he tested positive for a synthetic variant of EPO.  This post is in no way intended to express sympathy for Ricco or to argue that what he apparently did was justified.  As the rules currently stand EPO is a banned substance.  Riders who use it are cheating and they should be kicked out of the race.  Unless the drug test was a false positive, Ricco got what he deserved.  Throw the bums out.

The issue I want to consider here is not whether Ricco should have been punished, but whether blood doping and the use of EPO should be prohibited as forms of performance enhancement.  They are currently banned and there are good arguments for continuing to do so.  However, I think there is an alternative way to look at doping and EPO that should be considered.

The use of performance enhancing drugs in competitive sports is an enormous problem.  Many professional sports are addressing the problem by identifying banned substances, instituting testing procedures for those substances and legislating penalties to be applied to athletes who are found to have used the banned drugs.  From professional leagues that are more interested in maintaining the image of being anti-drug than in actually dealing with the problem, to drug tests that are often not conclusive, to athletes that lie about their drug use or insist they didn’t know they were taking a banned substance the problem of performance enhancing drugs in sport seems almost impossible to solve. 

And this is only the tip of a much larger iceberg.  I think consideration of this issue opens up a world of deeper questions about what constitues performance enhancement, whether some practices that are currently considered as illegal forms of enhancement might be acceptable or even desirable at some levels of sporting competition, and what functions we want different levels of sporting competition to fulfill in our culture.  Consider the following.

One of the desired ideals for sporting competition is that the competitors should begin from a level playing field, that none of the athletes be given an unfair advantage over the others.  The competition begins on a level playing field and the athlete who has trained harder, who understands the game better, who is more skilled, who is better able to maintain focus during the heat of the battle wins in the end.  At least that’s the way it should be.  A fundamental objection to the use of performance enhancing drugs is that they upset this level playing field by giving the drug user an advantage that is not due to his training, knowledge or skill.  Is this always true?  It depends on how you look at it.

The amount of oxygen carried by the blood is an essential determinant of performance in sports.  Oxygen is used to both carry energy to the muscles so that they can perform the work the sport requires and to carry waste products away from the muscles.  Oxygen carrying capacity is especially important in long term endurance events such as road racing in cycling where athletes must sustain very high levels of performance for hours without a break.  Many world-class athletes in high endurance sports have used artifical means to increase their oxygen carrying capacity in order to gain what can be a substantial competitive advantage.

Red blood cells

Oxygen is carried in the blood by red blood cells (RBCs) and an increase in the density of RBCs in the blood can greatly improve performance in endurance sports.  The two methods most commonly used to do this are blood doping and the the injection of EPO (erythropoietin).  Blood doping involves extracting blood from a donor, concentrating the blood so that it has a high proportion of RBCs, freezing the concentrate and then thawing it and injecting it into the athlete before the competion or during the competition in the case of multi-day events such as the Tour de France.  The donor can be either the athlete himself (autologous blood doping) or someone else with a compatible blood type (homologous blood doping).  EPO is a hormone that is naturally produced by the kidneys and that stimulates the production of RBCs in the bone marrow.  EPO can also be made in the laboratory and this type of pharmaceutical EPO can be injected under the skin to increase the body’s RBC production.  Ricco was charged with taking a variant of pharmaceutical EPO called CERA.

The use of EPO or blood doping can be difficult to detect.  Subcutaneously injected EPO typically cannot be detected 3 to 4 days after injection yet it has its maximum effect stimulating high levels of RBC production approximately 3 weeks later.  For that reason, banning an athlete for EPO use usually depends on catching him with EPO paraphanalia in his possession.  In Ricco’s case, the manufacturer, F. Hoffman-La Roche, worked with WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) to develop a test for the drug.  Homologous blood doping (using someone else’s blood) can be detected by DNA differences between the donor and the athlete’s RBCs.  Autologous blood doping (using your own blood) is extremely difficult to detect and no tests are currently available that are considered reliable enough to use in competitive sports.

In addition to relying on blood tests that are specific for EPO use or doping many professional sports use hematocrit as an indicator of illegal performance enhancement.  Hematocrit measures the proportion of the blood volume that is composed of RBCs.  Hematocrits above a certain level are taken to be abnormal and are officially used as indicators of doping or EPO use.  The UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale), the organizing body of professional cycling, has set 50% as the upper allowable hematocrit level.  If a rider tests with a hematocrit above 50, he is banned from competition. 

It is often cited that the “normal” hematocrit range in adult males is between 41 and 50.  This is the two standard deviation range which encompasses approximately two thirds of the general population.  The upper level of the three standard deviation range for hematocrit is 54.  Approximately one third of the general population falls outside the two standard deviation range that is cited as “normal”.  More to the point, approximately one sixth of the general population (about 16.6%)  will have naturally occurring hematocrit levels above 50.  We can also expect that those individuals with higher than normal hematocrit levels will be disproportionately represented in the population of endurance athletes because the increased oxygen carrying capacity of their blood gives them a natural advantage in endurance sports.  The UCI recognizes this problem by allowing exceptions to the 50 hematocrit rule for cyclists who have a long and consistent history of hematocrit measures above 50 as indicative of a naturally occuring high hematocrit level.

All professional endurance sports ban both EPO and blood doping as illegal forms of performance enhancement.  Should they do this?  If we consider them as a means of gaining an unfair advantage over the opponent, which is the way they are currently used, the answer is clearly “yes”.  However, I think another perspective is possible. 

Everyone has a naturally occuring hematocrit level that is genetically determined.  This natural hematocrit is not subject to training, it is what it is.  Natural factors such as training at high altitude or anemia, and artificial factors such as the use of EPO and blood doping can temporarily increase or decrease hematocrit but they do not affect the base hematocrit that each of us is born with.  This means that independently of any steps the competitor may take to increase hematocrit, some endurance athletes have a competitive advantage because of their genetics.  In other words, with all other things such as training regimen, skill level, knowledge of the sport, strength of will and competitive focus held equal, the endurance athlete with a naturally high hematocrit will have an advantage over the athlete who was born with a low hematocrit. 

With regard to hematocrit, a critically important factor in endurance sports, the playing field is not level.  The low hematocrit athlete starts at a disadvantage that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that is relevant to the sport.  It’s not about training regimen or intensity, it’s not about knowledge of the sport, the competition or the opponent, it’s not about trained skills and it’s not about heart, will or desire.  It’s about which sperm happened to fertilize which egg when the athlete was conceived.

Suppose we shift the common perspective on the use of EPO and blood doping.  Rather than think of them as a means to unbalance the competition by giving an athlete an unfair advantage, suppose we think of them as medical technologies we can use to level the playing field so that some athletes don’t begin the competition at a marked disadvantage because of their genetic inheritance?  Viewed from this different perspective, EPO and blood doping could be used to bring all of the athletes up to the same hematocrit level so that the competition could be decided on the basis of factors the athlete can control such as training, knowledge and desire. 

Under the current system EPO and blood doping are used surreptitiously by some athletes to give them an unfair advantage over their opponents.  These techniques unbalance the playing field.  However, if we make EPO and blood doping available to any athlete who wants to use them, these technologies can eliminate a naturally occurring advantage that benefits some athletes but not others.  The technologies level the playing field.

How might EPO or blood doping be used in this way?  Set a hematocrit level as a cut off point such as the level of 50 currently used by the UCI.  Competitors may use any means they wish such as training at altitude or using EPO to bring their hematocrit up to this level.  The athelete is tested before every competition, or in multi-day events such as the Tour de France before every stage, and they must have a hematocrit level below the cut off.  Under this system hematocrit level would function like weight levels in wrestling or boxing.  If you don’t make level, you can’t compete in the event.  You’re not labled as a cheater, fined and banned from the sport.  You simply cannot compete in the current event because your hematocrit level gives you an unfair advantage. 

This approach to the problem has several advantages.  First, by reorienting our thinking away from the view that these medical technologies are a means of introducing unfair advantage to the view that they are a means of eliminating unfair advantage we reorient the relationship between the athlete and his sport.  The athlete is no longer a cheater who is afraid of discovery and the organizing body of the sport is no longer treating its athletes like criminals to be caught.  Second, medical technologies that currently are used in secret and not in the best and safest of ways would be used in the open and in much safer conditions.  Third, as athletes strain to get as close to the cut off point as possible without going over and being eliminated from competition, our knowledge of how to use technologies like EPO and blood doping would increase and the conditions under which these technologies can be safely used would become better understood. Fourth, and perhaps most important of all, a playing field unbalanced by genetic factors is leveled so that competitions are less likely to be determined by the DNA of the athlete’s parents and more likely to depend on what the athlete has done to prepare for the event.

The underlying issue here is how professional sports in general and cycling in particular should respond to advances in our scientific understanding of the anatomical and physiological factors that affect athletic performance and the medical technologies that are developed from this understanding.  New technologies in the fields of drug treatments, prosthetics, and genetic engineering have the potential to substantially alter human capabilities and performance levels. How should sport respond to this advancing knowledge?  One possibility is that medical technologies could be evaluated individually to determine whether they can be used to enhance fair competition if made available to all of the competitors as opposed to unbalancing competition when they are only used by those who are willing to cheat.

Is this the right way to think about EPO and blood doping?  I don’t know but it’s worth considering.

Many new cyclists or cyclists who are thinking about using their bike to commute to work are anxious about riding in the road with traffic.  It’s not as scary as it looks and in many circumstances riding with cars is actually safer than riding in segregated bicycle lanes or what are euphimistically called “bicycle paths”.  If you’re going to be at all serious about road cycling or are going to commute to work you are going to have to share the road with cars.  How to ride a bike in traffic can be a controversial topic that generates discussions informed by passionately held ideologies and beliefs.  The advice and opinions expressed here are based on many years and tens of thousands of miles spent sharing the road with cars.  I ride with cars every day and I don’t want to be killed, maimed or seriously injured on the bike.  These are some of the ways I’ve found to most effectively accomplish those things.  Keep in mind that there are no hard and fast rules about riding in traffic.  You have to evaluate and adapt to each situation separately.  Riding safely with cars involves riding defensively and riding the line, among other things.

Riding defensively boils down to always being aware of where the cars are and what they’re doing, and knowing about, and being on the lookout for, the situations that most frequently lead to collisions between cyclists and motorized vehicles.  If you hit a car or a car hits you, you’re going to lose almost every time.  It doesn’t matter who was right and who was wrong and it doesn’t matter how much of a hardass cyclist you think you are.  What matters is physics.  Cars have a lot of mass and you don’t.  That gives slow moving cars a lot more momentum than fast moving bicycles and that means the cyclist loses.  Don’t want to get hit?  Recognize the circumstances in which cars hit bikes and avoid them.  Ride defensively.

Intersections.  Intersections of any kind – cross streets, side streets, traffic lights, parking lot entrances and exits, driveways and so on – can be dangerous for cyclists and an entire post could be devoted to them. 

Picture from http://www.slowtwitch.com/

Here I’ll only discuss one particular type of collision that can occur in an intersection; the car makes a right hand turn and hits the cyclist who is riding through the intersection on the right hand side of the road.  This is widely thought to be the most common way a car hits a cyclist in urban settings.  Washington DC, where I live, was reminded of this several days ago when a young woman commuting to work on her bike was hit and killed by a garbage truck turning right.  Drivers may be looking for pedestrians in a crosswalk when they turn right at an intersection but they usually aren’t looking for something going as fast as a bicycle moving past them on the right.  Whenever you are in a situation where a driver may turn right, watch for it.  What do you watch for? 

Directional signals.  Always look for a car’s flashing directional signals – never trust what you see.  Drivers will often turn without using their directional signal.  This can be expecially dangerous when they turn right.  Less frequently, drivers will signal a turn and then not make it.  You can sometimes read a right hand turn that is not signaled from the car’s front wheels.  Drivers who are stopped at an intersection and plan to turn right will sometimes turn the steering wheel while stopped to prepare for the turn.  Be aware of vehicles that swing left before they turn right.  A slight jog to the left can indicate the vehicle is going to turn right. SUV drivers tend to drive like this.  Always be wary and alert at any kind of intersection and never take a car’s movement path for granted.

Parked cars.  I mentioned this problem in the post about riding the line.  When you are passing cars parked along the side of the street, always try and see if there is someone inside the car.  If there is, approach the car with care because they may open the roadside door suddenly to get out of the car.  People in cars look for oncoming cars but they almost almost never look for cyclists before they open the door.  Sometimes they open it just as you go by and knock you over out into the roadway; sometimes the door opens a split second before you arrive and you smash into it and catapult over the handlebars. 

Some people recommend that you ride far enough out in the traffic lane so that opened doors won’t touch you.  However, this can be impractical if there is a lot of traffic, especially fast-moving traffic, on the road.  You can ride close to the parked cars without hindering traffic as long as you’re vigilant and careful.  If you see someone in a car, slow down as you approach.  This gives you more time to see whether they look like they’re preparing to exit the car or just sitting there waiting.  It also gives the person in the car more time to see you.  If their window is open, call out that a bike is approaching.  If there is someone riding behind you, call out “Person in parked car” so the other cyclist knows to be careful.

Underestimating your speed.  If you are riding fast, drivers will consistently underestimate your speed.  The faster you’re going, the more of a problem this can be.  I’ve seen this happen time and time again.  A driver is pulling out of a side street, they see you coming, they start to pull out anyway and then jam on the brakes in a panic when they realize you’re right on top of them. 

This happens so frequently because of the way people identify objects in the environment.  We take in information from the world around us and use bits and pieces of it to identify objects like “car”, “tree”, “guy on a bike”.  We then fill in the bits and pieces with what we already know about these objects based on our past experience.  For example, when you see a car you process just enough to identify it as a car and then use what you already know about cars to formulate a prediction about what it’s going to do next.  It may turn right, it’s unlikely to jump up on it’s hind wheels and salute as you ride by.  People see you riding, identify it as “a person on a bike” and predict your speed based on what they know about bike riders.  If you’re going fast, most of the driver’s experience has been with slower moving bike riders.  Based on their prior knowledge and experience they are likely to underestimate your speed. 

Underestimating your speed can be a problem in two situations.  The first is any time a car is going to pull across your line of movement either by coming out of a side street, driveway or parking lot entrance or by turning left across oncoming traffic.  The second is when you’re going straight on a road that has a right hand turn lane leading to an access ramp to a cross street.  You are riding the line separating the through road from the turn lane because you’re going straight.  Some idiot is afraid to pass you on the right in the turn lane and decides to pass you on the left in the through street and then cut in front of you onto the ramp.  You’re going faster than they think and they make a screaming high speed turn in front of you or jam on the brakes in a panic stop when they realize they’re not going to make it.

Learn to recognize the circumstanes where underestimating your speed can be a problem and be alert.

Evaluate, predict, plan, adapt and execute.  When you’re approaching an intersection or any circumstance that might pose a problem for a cyclist such as a car parked on the side of the road, road debris or potholes that you must navigate around, or loss of the shoulder as the road narrows to go over a bridge examine the upcoming situation.  Are there any moving vehicles around?  Where are they?  How fast are they going?  What are the potential dangers for a cyclist?

Based on your examination of the current situation, predict what the circumstances will be when you arrive at the problem point.  Where will the cars be?  What will they be doing?  Might the car in front of you turn right?  Does that guy who wants to pull out of the parking lot look like he’s underestimating your speed?

Use your prediction to formulate a plan of what you will do when you arrive at the problem point.  Should you slow down to hit the intersection after the only car you can see has gone through it?  Speed up to get there safely before the car arrives?  If you speed up or slow down are you going to be in trouble if the guy makes an unsignaled right turn?

Constantly reevaluate your plan as you approach the problem point and adapt it to changing circumstances.  Vehicles moving faster or slower than you first thought?  Pedestrians or cars appear that you didn’t see before? 

When you hit the problem point, execute the plan.  Getting to the problem point and then dithering about what you should do can be dangerous because any cars or pedestrians in the area may have been formulating their own plans and when you do something unexpected at the last instant because you lost confidence it can mess everybody up and lead to accidents.

I'm a Dumb Ass

looking behind you and continuing to ride a straight, sure line takes practice and you can’t be looking behind you all the time.  Make use of all the information available to you, both visual and auditory.  Listen for cars or bikes coming up behind you.  Learn to estimate their speed from their sound.  Know when they are going to pass.  Never wear earbuds and listen to your iPod on your bike like the guy in the picture on the left who not only has earbuds but special shields to block out external noise so he can hear his iPod better.  Wearing earbuds on a bike is like having “I’m a dumb ass” tattooed on your forehead.

Know your route.  Whether commuting or training, most riders ride the same route time and time again.  Learn your route.  Know where the danger points lie and be prepared for them.  Learn where the bad sections of pavement are that narrow your options of where on the road you can ride.  If you go through an intersection with traffic lights, learn the signal pattern so you can accurately predict what state the light will be in when you arrive.  Is it a smart light that responds to waiting traffic?  Learn the typical taffic patterns at an intersection.  Are right hand turns frequent or unlikely?  The more you know about your route, the better your chances of accurately predicting what will happen when you arrive at the danger points.

Aggression, timidity and defensive riding.  Riding defensively doesn’t mean you can’t ride aggressively.  The agressive rider who thinks everybody is looking out for him and he always has the right of way is a danger to himself and everyone around him.  The cyclist who rides hard and fast is often easy for drivers to predict and if she rides defensively as well, she’ll avoid potentially deadly situations.

Likewise, riding defensively doesn’t mean you should be a timid rider.  Accurately predicting what the situation will be when you arrive on your bike is an important part of riding defensively.  Just as you are predicting where the cars are going to be when you get there, they are predicting where you are going to be. Timid, frightened riders who lack confidence are more likely to do unexpected things, are more difficult to predict, and often make their ride more dangerous than it needs to be.  Be aware, don’t be scared.

Riding defensively is all about learning to recognize the circumstances that pose a danger to the cyclist and learning to predict when those circumstanes might occur in order to minimize the danger as much as possible.  You can recognize a potentially dangerous situation 1000 times and nothing bad happens.  It’s easy to lose focus, to lose awareness, to take it for granted.  Bad idea because the 1001st time might be the one that saves your life.

I’ve seen this happen time and time again.  Laura and I have had the good fortune to go on several bicycle tours that last one to two weeks.  The tours are advertised for advanced or experienced riders and typically feature hilly or mountainous terrain and daily rides in the 60 to 125 mile range.  You ride from place to place and a van carrys your luggage.  The other riders on the tour are almost always experienced cyclists, at least in the sense that they have been riding for many years and are used to riding long miles.  These tours usually schedule a day or two off when the riders are free to do whatever they want.  This has always puzzled me.  Why would experienced cyclists pay the steep cost of going on one of these tours, go through all the hassle of getting their bike to some exotic location, and then spend a day or two not riding in terrain that provides spectacular cycling?  The people who run these tours obviously know more about it than I do because by the third or fourth day of the tour almost all of the riders are noticeably lacking in energy and enthusiasm, are irritably fretting about why they feel so tired, and are looking forward to the break.  Meanwhile, Laura and I are riding extra miles every day because we’re having so much fun, are fresh and ready to go every morning, and are typically the only ones out on our bikes on the day off.

What’s going on?  Why are we riding more miles with less overall fatigue than almost all of the other riders?  I don’t know for sure, but I’m fairly certain the answer lies in post-ride nutrition.  Many of these other riders are active members of their local cycling clubs.  They shine on organized centuries and long weekend rides with members of the club.  After the ride everyone goes out for ice cream or pizza and beer.  They are clueless about post-ride nutrition and have given no thought at all to how what they eat when they get off the bike can affect how they will ride the next day and the day after that.  They finish the first day in glycogen debt and fail to adequately replenish their glycogen stores before the next day’s ride.  Every day the situation gets worse and the riding becomes more unpleasant until by the third or fourth day their blood sugar levels are so low they’re grinding it out with their head down and need a day off to physically and mentally recover.  All of this can be avoided if you pay attention to what’s happening in your body when you get off the bike and take advantage of the opportunity your body gives you to prepare for strenuous activity on the following day.  Most of it comes down to what you eat in the first 30 to 40 minutes after you get off the bike.

When you finish a long ride your glycogen stores are exhausted and you are very likely to have low blood glucose.  Your body responds to the glycogen debt by going into overdrive to replace the missing glycogen.  Excess glucose in the bloodstream is converted to glycogen and stored in the muscles and the liver.  Under normal circumstances insulin is used in this conversion process.  However, after an extended period of exercise when the muscle glycogen stores are exhausted an abbreviated and accelerated glycogen-storage process kicks into gear that converts glucose into glycogen and stores it in the muscles without the need for insulin.  This period of intense glycogen production and storage lasts for 30  to 60 minutes.

In order to take advantage of this brief period of accelerated glycogen storage the system must have blood glucose that can be converted to glycogen.  And there’s the problem.  When you finish a long or intense ride you are almost certainly low on blood glucose.  Your system is ready to rapidly and efficiently replenish your empty glycogen stores but it doesn’t have the glucose it needs to make the glycogen.

The solution is to flood your system with carbohydrates that can be quickly converted to blood glucose which will in turn supply the accelerated glycogen production and storage mechanism with the glucose it needs.  Although the enhanced glycogen production mechanism will operate for roughly 60 minutes after exercise has stopped, keep in mind that it takes time for carbohydrates in the stomach to be broken down into useable blood glucose.  Food you eat during the second half of that 60 minute window may still be in the stomach being digested when the enhanced glycogen-storage process ends.  The first 30 minutes after you get off the bike are critical.  If you are going to fully replenish your glycogen stores for the next day’s ride, you must ingest enough carbs during those 30 minutes to flood your system with glucose.  If you don’t, it doesn’t matter what you eat for the rest of the day; you will be building on a weak foundation and you won’t have the glycogen reserves you need to ride with strength day after day.  This cannot be stressed enough; you have to reload your system with carbs during the first 30 minutes after you get off the bike.

How many carbs do you need to eat during the critical 30 minutes?  Current thinking holds that you should aim to ingest one half gram of carbohydrate for each pound of body weight during the 30 minutes after you get off the bike.  This is easy to figure out; simply divide your weight in half and eat that many grams of carbs.  For example, I weigh about 160 lbs so I need to eat 80 grams of carbs within 30 minutes of getting off the bike.  There is also some evidence that combining these carbs with protein may facilitate the glycogen production and storage process.  The recommended ratio of carbs to proteins is 4 to 1.  Thus, at 160 lbs I need 80 grams of carbs and 20 grams of protein.

Eating enough food to provide this much carbohydrate in the first 30 minutes after you get off the bike can be very difficult.  The 30 minute part is much more important than the specific amount of carbs and protein part.  If you can’t manage to choke down the full recommended amount, eat as much as you can, but make absolutely certain you do it in the first 30 minutes after you get off the bike.

You can eat any kind of food you like as long as it’s high in carbs.  Simple carbohydrates that can be more quickly broken down into blood glucose are better than complex carbohydrates that take a longer time because you need to get the glucose in the blood stream within a short window of time.  There are two key factors that will end up driving your 30 minute carbohydrate feast; the food has to be available immediately when you get off the bike, and you have to be willing to eat it.  The carb sources you’ve been eating on the bike will work equally well during this critical 30 minute window but you may be sick and tired of sports drink, energy gel, low-fat fig newtons or whatever you’ve been eating by this time.  Laura and I drink a recovery drink called Endurox that contains carbs and proteins in the recommended 4 to 1 ratio.  We find it’smuch easier to drink a large number of carbs than eat them immediately after a long ride.  It’s also very easy to have the drink ready at the end of the ride.  Endurox comes in a powdered form that you mix with water.  We premeasure the powder, put it in a baggie, and carry it with us on the ride.  Water is almost always available at ride’s end and we simply mix the powder with fresh water in our water bottle and chug it down.  Although the manufacturer would have you believe otherwise, there’s nothing special about Endurox other than that we like the way it tastes.  A number of companies make recovery drinks that provide huge carbohydrate loads for immediate post-exercise glycogen replacement.

After the critical 30 minute window, try to continue to ingest carbohydrate at regular intervals throughout the remainder of the day.  Eat small amounts steadily rather than eating nothing and then pigging out at dinner.  Avoid alcohol because it will interfere with the uptake of glycogen and will also dehydrate you.  Avoiding alcohol is especially important immediately after the ride when the body is in the critical glycogen restocking period.

What you eat during the 30 minutes after you get off the bike is probably the single most important factor affecting how you will fare if you’re riding more than 90 minutes a day for more than 2 days.  If you get the carbs you need during this 30 minute window, you can ride for days and days without problems; if you don’t, you’re most likely going to be tired and out of energy by the third or fourth day.

For more information about what to eat (and what to avoid eating) after a ride, see Eating After the Ride Part 2.