Cycling UK Forum

I've been pondering this for a while.

I have been an active cyclist for years (but not a 100k every day level) and my base level always seemed to be a gentle 20 miles, with a gentle 30-50 miles when in peak training.
Some years back (as part of a cycling group) a couple of us took a non-cyclist who had just bought a bike for the usual "get fit lose weight" reasons for what we thought was a very gentle ride.
Too long ago to remember the exact route, but plotting with cycle.travel suggests perhaps 6-7 miles out to the cafe stop, then 6-7 miles back after a nice cake and coffee break.
We thought this was very gentle, but the poor guy just ran out of steam on the way back and had to stop for a long rest after about 5 miles.
Sadly, never saw him again (probably understandably).

So what would the forum estimate is a base level for an unfit non-cyclist?
Start at 5 miles, or even less?
For a regular cyclist this seems like "not even warmed up yet".

Having been off the bike for a year or more (with a brief return) I found that an initial ride of my usual "warm up and testing" route of 4 miles out and 4 miles back was enough.
I've just done 14+ miles (7+ out then back the exact same route) and that was enough.
Of course, as a long term cyclist I know that I can ride these distances so it is just a case of not over extending myself as I build up my fitness again.
If you haven't ridden more than a couple of miles, I suppose even 5 miles seems an awful lot.

I am still embarrassed at what we did, quite unintentionally, to the poor guy.

I suppose that taking someone for a gentle 3-4 mile walk when they've never been further than the local shops on foot might be similar.

LittleGreyCat wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 3:45pm I suppose that taking someone for a gentle 3-4 mile walk when they've never been further than the local shops on foot might be similar.

... I think is the key statement! We forget how much people* vary - I have colleagues who use the lift to go up/down one storey. How would they ride up a 30m high hill??

*That encompasses both their inate (genetic?) ability, and their current level of fitness.

You need to look for a training program that's designed for a complete beginner by someone who knows what they're doing, if you ask other cycling enthusiasts you risk making the same mistake again. British Cycling used to have a suite of training programs on their website to suit all abilities and objectives, but they're behind a paywall now.

There are plenty about, Nicole Cooke's Cycle for Life has one, as does Chis Sidwell's Complete Bike Book.

Most beginner's programs start with about three 35 minute sessions a week at an intensity of 60%-75% MHR, increasing the duration but not the intensity by about 10% a week for 7 weeks, followed by a rest week before commencing the next block of 8 weeks during which the intensity and duration are incremented.

The key warning that all programs give is that if your fitness is not improving it's because you're doing too much, so don't continue ramping up the training load. Instead reduce your training, and don't start increasing again until you can manage the level you're already on.

It’s a tricky one. I had a year when I swam half a mile every morning- pretty fit, huh? I then did an aerobics class and was red like a tomato afterwards and couldn’t move for hours. Obviously swimming is a bit of a special case as there’s not nearly as much resistance but that translation thing can be an issue with any new sport. Combine that with weight/generally being aerobicly unfit and it’s going to need a gentle start.

I’d suggest for a broadly not very fit person (eg my autistic son) walking to the shops regularly is a great start (he has done a couple of cycle tours but I’d wouldn’t recommend that- he’s pleased he did it but didn’t necessarily love the experience at the time and he was more active then). A tiny number of push-ups from knees, ten minutes in the gym- they are all a start. Cycling to the shops, to the swimming pool, to see your friends is also a good way to begin to be active and is a lot less scary than going out with a club. The other thing that works for him is playing badminton- he loves it even though he gets winded so doing something you love is definitely a key.

This scheme is very popular https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowl ... ing-plan-0

Some 'non cyclists' seem to be able to translate football/running/swimming etc fitness to two wheels very easily, others really struggle.

From my own experience of getting back into running during Covid, starting small is definately the way and that might be very small indeed. Despite regular walks of up to 10 miles and my ability to ride x10's of km, it took me a month at 3 sessions a week to run 2km non stop, i eventually got to 10km but had to give up due to injury!

I know that my 'steady' speed (avg 20kph) is too fast for newbies, especially if you want to see them a second time! Be prepared for short rides at slow speeds with plenty of stops

Nearholmer wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 5:24pm This scheme is very popular https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowl ... ing-plan-0

I expect the structure is very helpful and reassuring, and the gradual build up including days off is very sensible.

Some of it's a bit ott; eating regularly on a 50km ride, strength work in the gym... makes it seem much more elite than it is.

Still, good to see it.

Been there! A former colleague asked me to take him on a long cycle through the hills of Argyll. Whilst he was not a cyclist, he professed himself fit from all his gym work. Happy to oblige, I selected a 50mile route I usually do in a day, but with an overnight stop, thinking that a leisurely 25 miles a day should be within the grasp of any moderately fit person.

BIG MISTAKE!

First gentle hill we come to, one you or I probably wouldn’t even notice, he was off and pushing. Let's just say that it was tedious couple of days.

Like the OP I was a bit embarassed at putting my colleague into a position where he couldn't really cope. I suppose the moral is never assume any degree of bike fitness in any non-cyclist.

It's hard to know why the rider was struggling, fitness means many things, people do need to get used to riding a bike. After an absence of 25 years riding my first bike home, five miles along a very flat river path, absolutely wiped me out. it was a fortnight before I went anywhere near it again, another month before I managed ten miles, three months later my first 100...
If someone who hadn't ridden a bike for a while suggested going for a ride, I'd be looking at something under five miles with options to extend or even cut short.

axel_knutt wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 4:53pm<snip>
Most beginner's programs start with about three 35 minute sessions a week at an intensity of 60%-75% MHR, increasing the duration but not the intensity by about 10% a week for 7 weeks, followed by a rest week before commencing the next block of 8 weeks during which the intensity and duration are incremented.

The key warning that all programs give is that if your fitness is not improving it's because you're doing too much, so don't continue ramping up the training load. Instead reduce your training, and don't start increasing again until you can manage the level you're already on.

Thanks.

By my calculations a 35 minute session at 10 mph would be about 5.8 miles.
At 8 mph 4.7 miles.
So 5 miles is probably the maximum for a "newbie" rider for the first few rides.

With a cycling group which went out once or twice a week that would take a good few weeks to ramp up.
The aim would be to get a cyclist started then rely on them to do a few extra sessions on their own.

i have found that "unfit, non-cyclists" tend to have a really badly fitting bike and hence burn energy excessively even over a short distance.

mig wrote: ↑11 May 2023, 1:27pm i have found that "unfit, non-cyclists" tend to have a really badly fitting bike and hence burn energy excessively even over a short distance.

One aim is/was to advise on bike fit and pedalling.
Amazing the difference when you have the saddle height correct and pedal on the balls of the feet not the instep.

I have just bought this and I KNOW it is cheap, but perfect for me. FREE delivery

https://www.tredz.co.uk/.ETC-Flow-8-Tur ... 236693.htm

Some sell it at £60

I am using (in the process of setting up, getting it ready) my old Saracen

At 65 it suits me and will prepare me for getting back on the bike

This is my bike for going out on

LittleGreyCat wrote: ↑11 May 2023, 4:56pm One aim is/was to advise on bike fit and pedalling.
Amazing the difference when you have the saddle height correct and pedal on the balls of the feet not the instep.

Is using the instep that bad, what are the advantages apart from reducing toe overlap of using the balls of the feet. I ask as someone who mounts cleats as far back as I can get them.

re_cycler wrote: ↑12 May 2023, 6:22pm

LittleGreyCat wrote: ↑11 May 2023, 4:56pm One aim is/was to advise on bike fit and pedalling.
Amazing the difference when you have the saddle height correct and pedal on the balls of the feet not the instep.

Is using the instep that bad, what are the advantages apart from reducing toe overlap of using the balls of the feet. I ask as someone who mounts cleats as far back as I can get them.

You walk/run using the balls of your feet.
This also allows more flexibility in the ankle and a better pedal stroke (IMHO).
However we are all different, so if instep works for you, do it.