The wifebot and I just got back from a 10-day cruise through the Panama Canal. The entire trip, with travel was actually 12 days - so it was essentially 12 days + 3 days of insane work prior of NO riding. I thought that maybe the break was good for me and I'd possibly be stronger from the rest.
Boy, was I wrong.
My first ride was a day after I returned back, and what I would normally have no problems with was extremely hard for me. I was huffing and puffing, and yes, I actually did have to stop to take a break. Wow - everything I had worked up to was all shot to shit. The next day wasn't as bad, but I still am not where I used to be prior to me leaving.
I've concluded this: For cycling, if one is to "rest", he/she must do so with some sort of pedalling included. Kind of like, an active rest or what the elitists call a "recovery ride". I went cold turkey, and all those gains I had were lost. I believe that if I had access to a real bicycle, even a single speed beach cruiser, I wouldn't have been in such bad shape upon my return.
This was the longest break I have ever taken, and I am definitely going to try not to do that again.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion just yet. You were out of the saddle for a few weeks, gave your legs a rest, & let your body recuperate. Then you went out for one ride after the break, met Huff & Puff on a climb, and conclude that the break didn't do you any good? No way, give it a few more rides to get some reconditioning going on. Then see if the rest didn't help...
ReplyDelete--Mark