Tired legs - cycle or drive?

By carrying on you're just delaying recovery - and slightly increasing your risk of injury - but mostly just delaying recovery.

Don't push it - if you've got a GPS or display on the bars - turn it off or turn it to another page so you can't see your speed.

Look around & enjoy the views.

If you're time constrained then drive - if not, ride - you can always rest tomorrow

I always find an easy spin helps recovery, I'd choose to cycle but go with an easy pace.

two things:

- protein
- rest

Sounds like you need to give your legs a chance to recover, so maybe cycling to work every other day would be better for you.

Maybe in 3 - 6 months, you can build yourself up to making those long trips almost everyday.

The same can be said for any sport or exercise - if your body is soar, take a break and recover. If you don't, expect an injury!

I realize this is a bit on the old side now, but I hope no one will mind if I cast a "vote". First, you ultimately need to decide whether to push it or to stop for yourself. You're the only one who can feel what's going on in your body, so consider others' advice but trust your own judgment. That being said, my experience is that there is a rather long gap between "I feel pretty sore" and "I pushed it too far, this was dangerous/harmful". I find that when I get the willpower to push myself to ride (or hike, or whatever) another day in a row when I didn't really feel like doing it, I usually end up feeling better, physically and mentally, at the end of the day rather than worse. BUT I also recently had an experience backpacking where I DID push it too far and ended up in camp shivering from exhaustion and puking from lactic acid build-up. I don't think my life was ever in danger, but I definitely should have listened more closely to my body and cut the miles a little shorter for that day (If you're wondering, I was at much higher elevation than I'm acclimated to and that lead me to overestimate what I could do in a day). But that experience is one bad time out of many, many times when I felt better after pushing myself, so that's why my vote is to push it, using resonable caution and listening to yourself first.

Broono83 wrote:

I’ve always wondered about these 120bpm recovery rides. I do between 40 and 100 miles a week alongside other sports and would say I’m reasonably fit, resting heart rate is 50.

However even light pedaling on the flat will have me at 130, I can’t even imagine the pace I’d need to attempt any incline to remain below 120bpm. .

This tells me a lot, on a road ride you should be maintaining a constant effort (torque and rpm) it SHOULDN'T be any higher climbing a hill, in addition I find stiff quads come from generating the power through torque and not rpm, gear down and spin faster (what's your typical cadance) and your much less likely to get sore muscles.

you'll get used to it. Its quite normal to feel a bit sore after cycling 100miles in a week if your only used to doing 20 to 40. I do over 200 miles a week and the last two mornings I have peddaled like I'm weak. The the next time you ride take it easy. By riding frequently you recovery times start to improve. It does take time and you will feel rubbish though for a bit. You can't do your self damage unless you get an injury which means your position is not right.

Again spinning may be right for some but not all. If you ride at a low cadence for long enough you adapt and can ride at low cadence all day long and it will feel fine. I tried spinning for two hours this morning. Avg cadence was a 77 rpm (thats really spinny for me) but my heart and breathing rate were higher to. Riding home at 60 rpm felt much more comfortable.

Hense ride at what ever cadence feels normal and comfortable to you. There's no right and wrong no whatever anyone says on this. If my heart rate was 155 bpm I'd be racing. Everyone is different.

Killerclown wrote:

Except actual experts who know what they’re talking about, who will tell you higher cadences ( about 90 rpms ) are more efficient than lower cadences ( unless you’re making sub 100 Watts at that cadence ), when you’ll find the effort of moving your legs around that quickly is actually mostly a wasted effort. The effect will show itself with a simple enough experiment. Work on your fitness until you can produce well over 100 Watts at 90 rpm. Then ride for as long as you can at a given power, at ( for example 60 rpms), then see how long you can go at the same power, but producing it at 90 rpms. Keep as much as you can the same about the route, your kit, and the weather conditions.

This is just shameless and brazen bullshiit. Can you link to where an ‘expert’ has actually said this? Higher cadences are- by definition - not more efficient than lower. You keep trotting out this nonsense with all of your other forum IDs, but it is still fundamentally indefensible.

The Rookie wrote:

Higher cadences are less efficient, you need more energy input to achieve the same power. However the body fatigues slower and that is why it’s beneficial. Plenty of data if you search.

Sorry but that’s contradictory. Higher cadences carry a higher metabolic demand, that’s true, but a higher metabolic demand is going to promote fatigue, not reduce it. Cycleclinic pretty much nailed it previously and it should have been left at that.

I'd really try and persist in doing the commute - your once or twice a week.
I know it can feel like a mountain to climb to get a commute habit going but try to remember that decision makers assume that the future is still the car in its various guises and really do we want to end up with gridlock after gridlock for decades to come?
Urban commuting is total sh ite but keep at it.
No, 40 or so miles a week is not going to damage you.

I had a week off commuting last week as I was feeling tired and sub-par. Think I was suffering from a low level virus and spent Thurs and Friday at home just sleeping. Cycled in again yesterday as was feeling a bit better but in the back of my mind I though I should drive. Cycled anyway. Now today I'm feeling crap again so had to drive. Probably drive the rest of the week now. I know I'd much rather cycle as it is less stressful.

Listen to your body. If you are feeling unusually tired then you are probably ailing from something. Rest is usually what is needed.

Tetragrammaton1 wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

Higher cadences are less efficient, you need more energy input to achieve the same power. However the body fatigues slower and that is why it’s beneficial. Plenty of data if you search.

Higher cadences are not less efficient. As long as you’re making sufficient power to not render it a futile exercise ( at relatively low powers you’re expending more energy moving your legs around at higher cadences than it’s worth ) then higher cadences have been proved, by actual experts, to be a more efficient way of pedalling than lower cadences. Your fitness needs to be sufficient to allow you to make the required power at the higher Cadence for it to be worthwhile.

Bloody hell, Nick - please give this bullshit a rest....or link to one of these 'experts', as you have been repeatedly asked to do when you were called Milemuncher, Killerclown and the rest.

Either validate your claim - or STFU about it.

Fenix wrote:

Hang on - I thought he rode everywhere at 40rpm ?

Think the talk of high cadence is part of the disguise! Unfortunately, I suspect we all recognise the writing style all too well so that any attempt to retain anonymity will be futile.

Here's two quotes from the article you just linked to... (EDIT - in a post which you've just deleted - you obviously read it to the end and discovered it didn't fit your confirmation bias )

Coach Ric Stern agrees. 'Using a higher cadence – for example 80rpm vs 60rpm – results in a better "feel", plus it reduces the forces you have to apply to remain at a specific power output.'

In fact, a lower cadence can have benefits too. 'All the evidence shows that a low to moderate cadence – 40-60rpm – is the most efficient,' says Stern.

So which is it, Nick?