The Outside Blog

Dispatches : Biking

Endurance Training at 40 and Up

Endurance training isn’t just for the under 40 crowd. In fact, a European study has found that for men, endurance exercise is beneficial to the heart regardless of when they first began training.

“The heart is a muscle,” says David Matelot, who presented the study at the EuroPRevent congress 2014. "If you train it, it becomes bigger and stronger, so the pump can be more efficient.” It’s likely that the right ventricles were bigger as well, but they are harder to measure.

Though starting training after 40 has positive effects, Matelot still recommends that people start much earlier—in childhood, if possible. “There are others benefits of endurance training than cardiac parameters,” he says. “Indeed, endurance training is also beneficial for bone density, for muscle mass, for oxidative stress… And these benefits of endurance training are known to be better if training have been started early in life.”

It’s also key to keep training once you’ve started. The benefits from exercise can dwindle quickly in the inactive. But, he says, it’s “never too late to change your way of life and to get more physically active.”

The Study Methods

Researchers studied 40 men between the ages of 55 and 70 who had no cardiovascular risk factors, assessing when they first began training and the level of exercise—specifically cycling and running—they performed.

Of the 40, ten had never exercised more than two hours a week; the remaining 30 had exercised for at least seven hours, beginning either before age 30, or after age 40. The group that started younger had been training for an average of 39 years; the older group 18.

Participants went through maximal exercise testing, echocardiography at rest and during sub-maximal exercise, and heart rate analysis.

Researchers found that resting heart rate was similar for the exercisers, but much more rapid in the non-exercisers. The more active group also had bigger left ventricles and atria, and the same results in their cardiac echocardiography tests.

Read More

Killing a Cyclist—and Then Suing the Family

No one ever wins in conflicts between cars and bicycles, but a recent story from such an incident in Ontario ranks as one the most senseless and ugliest altercations of its kind.

On October 28, 2012, around 1:30 a.m., 17-year-old Brandon Majewski and his two 16-year-old friends, Richard McLean and Jake Roberts, were riding their bikes on a rural, two-lane road on the northern outskirts of Toronto. That's when a car, driven by Sharlene Simon, 42, struck them from behind. Majewski died from his injuries at a local hospital several hours after the accident, while McLean suffered multiple broken bones, including his pelvis, and spent extensive time recovering.

Six months after the accident, Brandon’s older brother, Devon, died at his family’s home from an overdose. The family says the 23-year-old didn’t intend to kill himself, but simply succumbed to a potent mix of drugs and alcohol that he was using to dull the pain of losing his brother. In the aftermath, the Majewski family sued Simon for $900,000 to cover the expenses of putting their child to rest. And the McLeans filed another suit against her for an additional $1.4 million to recoup Richard’s medical costs.

Now, Simon has countersued Majewski’s estate, as well as the other two boys, for $1.35 million in compensation for the difficulties the incident caused her. According to a story in the Innisfil Journal, Simon’s claim states that the children “did not apply their brakes properly,” and that “they were incompetent bicyclists.” In the suit, Simon says that the accident has caused her “psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability, and post-traumatic stress.”

Perhaps this will sound cruel, but it hardly seems unreasonable that Simon should endure a little “stress and suffering.” Majewski’s family might—might!—be able to offer Simon absolution and closure, but they certainly shouldn’t be required to pay her a portion of the $1.35 million. After all, she was driving 55 in a 50-mph zone, and she’s the one who struck the cyclists, so her proficiency is as much in question as the teens’.

I'm sure it's heartbreaking for Simon to contend with what she's done, and the countersuit is likely about self-preservation in the face of the financial realities. But the fact remains, Simon killed someone, and by hiding behind a lawsuit she's shrugging off accountability and refusing to face the human reality of her actions, which is behavior that's more despicable than the accident itself. 

{%{"quote":"If you’re a driver, before you get aggressive with cyclists, consider how you’d feel if you caused someone to die."}%}

Other details of the story don’t reflect well on Simon, either, including the fact that she left the scene of the crime. Apparently, Simon’s husband, Jules, an off-duty police officer, was following his wife in a second car at the time of the accident, and after checking on the scene he escorted his wife home—before the police had arrived. And while officials say that alcohol isn’t suspected in the crash, because Simon wasn’t at the site, no breathalyzer was given, so there’s no evidence to exonerate her either. 

That said, Simon isn't the only one to blame. What were three teenagers doing riding their bikes down a dark country lane at 1:30 a.m. in the first place? A Toronto Sun story says the boys had gone out for hot dogs, and it quotes Majewski’s father, Derek, acknowledging that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. “I know they should not have been out there that late,” his father said. “But they are good kids.”

Good or not, the teens shouldn’t have been riding on a wet road in the middle of the night. According to Simon, the trio was also riding three abreast, wearing dark clothing and no helmets, and none had bike lights to warn oncoming traffic of their presence. The bikes were equipped with reflectors, but of course that’s horribly insufficient for riding on a dark motorway with cars traveling up to 50 miles per hour. All of which is to say, the cyclists, as well as their parents who allowed them out, bear some responsibility for the accident.

These sorts of incidents tend to get painted in black and white, and opinion usually divides along predictable lines, with cyclists maintaining that they don’t get fair treatment on the roads and motorists insisting that bikes don’t belong on the roads at all. But most situations are messier and more complicated than that, especially this one. 

Motorists must realize that cyclists have a right to be on the roads, and we all have to figure out ways to coexist. I see so many drivers get angry at cyclists, cutting them off, gunning their engines around them, slamming on their brakes as if to try and cause them to crash. Last weekend while out riding on the roads around Santa Cruz, the group I was with had two separate vehicles throw empty soda cans at us.

It always makes me wonder: Do drivers really want to kill cyclists? Because riders are vulnerable and exposed on the roads, and causing one of us to crash could very well result in a death. So if you’re a driver, before you get aggressive with cyclists, consider how you’d feel—how you would live for the rest of your life—if you caused someone to die.

{%{"quote":"Motorists must realize that cyclists have a right to be on the roads, and we all have to figure out ways to coexist."}%}

Likewise, we cyclists must realize that with the right to be on the road comes responsibility. I see so many riders fail to stop at intersections, pass cars on the right, and act as traffic menaces. But by ignoring the rules of the road, we cyclists confuse drivers, incite their anger and scorn, and sometimes even precipitate accidents.

We must be proactive about our right to ride, and that includes making ourselves as visible as possible, adhering to all traffic regulations, and, basically, riding defensively. We are vulnerable and, like it or not, collisions or altercations are likely going to be worse for us as cyclists than for drivers. 

Brandon Majewski’s death is a tragedy. I feel sorry for his devastated family and friends, and I hope they find peace. But I also pity Sharlene Simon, who, as the mother to three children herself, surely never intended to hit those boys, much less kill one. And I have to believe that Simon is countersuing out of anger and hurt and even financial self-preservation. That wouldn’t make it right or any less repugnant, but it would at least make it comprehensible.

I still believe that no one wins in conflicts between cars and bicycles, but perhaps a tiny bit of good can come from this awful story. The next time you’re out on the road, whether you’re a driver or a cyclist, think of Brandon and Sharlene. Obey the traffic laws. Move deliberately and with caution. And most importantly, have some empathy for your fellow human beings.

Read More

Graphene: The Material of the Future

What do the condom of the future and the new line of women’s skis from Head have in common? Okay, you’re not gonna get this one, so I’ll just tell you. Both will utilize a material called graphene, a layer of carbon atoms bonded together in repeating hexagonal shapes. One million times thinner than paper and 100 times stronger than steel, graphene is considered the strongest and lightest material known to man.

Two scientists from England’s University of Manchester discovered graphene in 2004. They were subsequently awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize in physics for isolating the material. Since its discovery, graphene has been imagined for numerous applications—everything from unbreakable phone screens to body armor for soldiers to better solar cells (the material is an excellent conductor of heat).

A University of Michigan study is looking at how graphene could be used to make infrared contact lenses. And that condom, which the University of Manchester is developing thanks to a $100,000 grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is supposed to be the strongest and thinnest condom ever made—and therefore a condom men might actually be inclined to wear because of the near-normal sensation the prophylactic will allow. (When I tried to reach somebody at University of Manchester for comment, I was told nobody was available.) The Polish government is so encouraged by graphene’s potential that it has poured nearly $70 million into infrastructure to produce the material.

{%{"quote":"One million times thinner than paper and 100 times stronger than steel, graphene is considered the strongest and lightest material known to man."}%}

Any real use for graphene so far has come in the world of sports. Last year, Austrian sporting goods manufacturer Head increased the power and control of its YouTek Graphene Speed Pro tennis racket by employing graphene in its throat. In testing, the manufacturer noticed that the most precise and hardest-hit balls were struck using rackets that were light in the midsection but heavy in the handle and head. The prototypes, however, kept cracking. Graphene solved that problem.

Catlike, a Spanish manufacturer of cycling helmets, is also using graphene to make lighter and more durable helmets. The four styles of Mixino helmets, which the company claims are incredibly strong yet incredibly lightweight, have been on the market only for a few months and cost around $300.

Next season, Head’s line of women’s skis will feature the material. “Graphene allowed us to target where we wanted to reduce weight while also increasing the product’s strength,” says Jon Rucker, Head’s vice president.

In the groomer ski category, the company used graphene in the midsection, allowing the heavier tip and tail of the ski to grip the snow. In powder boards, Head designers used graphene in the tip and tail to allow the ski to float through the fluff.

The downside to all this is that the skis are more expensive. Graphene costs about 20 percent more than fiberglass or carbon, other materials used in ski manufacturing. That means Head’s Total Joy, which is 85 millimeters underfoot, will run you about $1,000.

If reports are true—that the skis are damp, strong, and lighter than other skis on the market—then the cost may be worth it. Head also plans to unveil men’s skis featuring graphene. “There’s no timetable,” says Rucker. “But they’re coming.”

Other sporting goods products featuring graphene may also be on the very near horizon. “If graphene isn’t manufactured perfectly, the material is weak,” says Jun Lou, a researcher at Rice University who recently released a study on the effectiveness of graphene. “But if it’s mixed with other materials in a composite, as would probably be the case in most sports equipment, the product will likely do very well. It’s also a cheaper way of using graphene, so I think we’ll see more of that soon.”

Read More

Now It's On: Does Wearable Tech Live Up to Its Name?

Buzzing along in a feisty double pace-line on a Tour de France-worthy BMC on a crisp morning in Scottsdale, Arizona, the hump of Superstition Mountain looming on the horizon, the moment seemed right. I raised my finger to my sunglasses, gave a delicate swipe across the optical touch sensor, and began filming. Reviewing the footage later that evening, I witnessed one of the least epic cycling videos ever made: about seven seconds of the shadow of my passing finger, then my view repeatedly jerking over to Tyson Miller, the product director for Recon Instruments, riding on a neighboring bike, my wind-buffeted voice fretting, “Is this thing on?”

I was trying out the new Recon Jet, billed as the first heads-up display (HUD) for sports—an inexact analogy would be a less expensive Google Glass, purpose-built for cycling. The device has long been a source of feverish speculation among data-minded time-trialers and triathletes, a heat-seeking missile aimed at the hearts of fitness geeks, and I was the first journalist to take it for a spin. Over dinner the night before my ride, Miller had whet my appetite by sketching out what the Jet will be able to do. The shades will automatically record a 15-second video clip when a rider hits a certain speed. When you arrive at the summit of a monster climb, the device will snap a photo and upload it to Instagram. Then there’s the text capability—messages sent to a user’s phone will be routed to the HUD. I had envisioned critical readouts of my body’s performance twitching like EKGs across a ghostly data field, a digital invisible hand pushing me toward the Top 10 on a Strava segment, man and machine becoming one, a skin-suited cycloborg.

But once we got out on the road, things were still pretty beta, and the view through my glasses was not so rose colored. The frames were 3-D-printed resin prototypes, so fit and comfort were approximate; the device also felt a touch heavy and kept sliding down my sweaty nose. (The finished product, which will be available to consumers in late spring, will weigh 60 grams, about twice as much as cycling-specific shades like the Oakley Jawbones.) The small screen, which sits below and to the right of the user’s eyes, kept drifting out of position; the piercing head-on desert sun was washing out the resolution, making it harder for me to register whether I was filming or taking photographs. Then there was what I’ll call the Segway factor: the feeling that I couldn’t quite decide whether what I was doing was incredibly cool or inescapably dorky.

I kept glancing down and to the right, at a tidy little square where the data should have been—“like a car dashboard,” Miller said. But my dashboard was a static prototype, with placeholder fields for speed and cadence. And the Jet was not yet equipped for navigation or getting calls or showing watts. The future was right here, resting on the bridge of my nose, but somehow, like Superstition Mountain, it seemed just out of reach, a persistent mirage of great potential.

Wearable tech is everywhere—more than one wag has dubbed this the year of wearable computing—even if more people know about it than know what to do with it. Fitness nerds were an easy sell and have already embraced the stuff. (As a measure of market penetration, try syncing your heart-rate monitor to your Garmin at a race start amid the chorus of devices.) And as products become smaller and more powerful, there seems to be only one direction for the market to go. Fitness-tracking wristbands are already a $2.5 billion industry, although the kinks are still being ironed out, as evidenced by Fitbit’s recall of its Force in February, due to complaints about skin rashes. Oakley is considering putting monitors in an entire line of athletic apparel, including shorts and running shoes. The research firm IHS projects that sales of performance monitors—from fitness trackers for suburban dog walkers to insoles that will tell runners if they’re overpronating—will hit more than 180 million units by 2017. That’s a drastic jump from the 20 million sold in 2010. But will the wearable-tech revolution lead to a new generation of plugged-in peak performers, or just enable more outlets for attention-fractured social-media narcissists?

{%{"image":"http://media.outsideonline.com/images/now-its-on-wearable-fitness-tracker_in.jpg","caption":"Misfit's Shine activity tracker"}%}

I felt implicated in that very question. When not trying to break some personal record on a Strava cycling segment, I’d often find myself pausing to upload a shot of a gorgeous coastal California running trail to my snowbound Instagram friends back east. Wouldn’t it be great to fuse all this into a single, almost prosthetic device? Or would that only push me further away from the essence of pure athletic experience? There seemed to be no better device to test than Recon’s Jet. Not only is it the first cycling-specific unit, but Recon has long been at the forefront of wearable technology.

The company’s roots trace back to a 1996 Danish swim meet. There, 21-year-old aspiring professional swimmer Dan Eisenhardt lost by 0.28 second at a qualifying event for the national team. Eisenhardt was haunted by the number—he couldn’t stop wondering whether knowing his time during the swim might have compelled him to put in the effort required to win, setting his life on a different course. And so, in the mid-2000s, along with some fellow engineering students at the University of British Columbia, he set out to create swim goggles that would display real-time data.

In the end, ski goggles were a better fit for the company Eisenhardt cofounded, which became Recon in 2008. (Eisenhardt decided that the market for high-end wearable tech in the pool was simply too small.) In 2009, Recon began selling its Snow, a HUD module that gear makers like Oakley and Smith could embed in their ski goggles. Curiously, as the company went through iterations of its operating system, Recon’s brain trust began to realize that customers were not always so interested in knowing hardcore performance data like the height and time of their jumps. “People were more interested in getting a text message on the mountain and keeping track of their kids,” says Miller. They veered toward games like Angry Birds, “to play on the lift ride up,” he notes. Recon has shipped some 50,000 units of the Snow, but ski-industry insiders consider the device more a high-cost piece of flair than a performance tool.

Recon hopes to change that with the Jet, its first soup-to-nuts wearable, which will target a much more data-obsessed community. As Dutch cyclist Laurens ten Dam told me, “Some pros really are hooked to their screens. They literally look at their power every three seconds.” Not having to shoot those glances down at the handlebars could be less distracting than seeing something at the periphery of your vision. And, as Ten Dam notes, in a time trial, “it would be good to stay more aero, looking straight ahead rather than down at your power meter.”

According to Eisenhardt, the Jet isn’t just for pros. “The quantified-self movement extends way beyond the fanatics,” he says. “We all want to measure ourselves and compare ourselves to others, and we don’t want to reach into our pockets for our phones, because it disrupts our experience and frankly is unsafe.”

But HUD units have their own risks: People may end up paying more attention to the information in front of them than what’s actually in front of them. When I asked the cognitive scientist Daniel Simons—coauthor of The Invisible Gorilla, a book that explores how intuition can deceive—about Google’s Glass and Recon’s Jet, in which information is relegated to the periphery of the visual field, he told me that visual distraction may be less important than cognitive distraction. “I don’t think the thing being there is typically the problem,” Simons says. “It’s the attention load. How often are you going to look at your speed? Whereas if your Facebook stream is there and it’s perpetually changing and interesting, you might not be aware of how much attention you’re paying to it.”

I actually found the Jet to be less distracting than I had anticipated. The display was not as immersive as a smartphone. The screen was never in front of my eyes; it required a conscious glance to the lower-right corner—arguably a better placement for a cyclist than, say, Google Glass’s eyebrow orientation. Recon also has a forthcoming gaze-detection system that will blank the screen when the user isn’t looking at it, to save battery life.

Distraction, of course, is cognitive, not just physical—a text informing you that your house is being broken into will consume more of your attention than your current speed. But a discussion about potential distraction should factor in what cyclists are already doing: glancing down at a Garmin, fumbling in a jersey pocket for a phone. The Jet, Eisenhardt points out, could mitigate these risks.

Recon is certainly breaking new legal ground, as the Jet will presumably be used mostly on public roads. It’s currently illegal to drive in the state of New Jersey while using Google Glass. Will it be illegal to cycle while wearing a HUD? Legislation has yet to tackle that, but the point crossed my mind during our ride on the Apache Trail, when our group of three was pulled over by an Arizona Department of Public Safety trooper. A self-identified cyclist, he angrily accused us of blocking traffic on the narrow road. The Jet is pretty unobtrusive, and until then no one—not even another cyclist—had asked about it. Still, as we politely resolved the situation, I half expected the trooper to call attention to my shades. He never did, but I was prepared. If things turned nasty, I thought, I could discreetly start filming.

{%{"image":"http://media.outsideonline.com/images/now-its-on-author_in.jpg","caption":"Author Tom Vanderbilt testing the Recon Jet."}%}

The biggest performance boon, however, would come from using data in real time. Miller lays out the scenario: You’re going for a ride, and while you’re on a Strava segment the Jet gives you time and ranking updates. When you’re finished, it tells you how you did. It’s not available yet, because it would involve integration with Strava’s proprietary software, but the companies are talking.

How desirable this virtual video game actually is probably depends on your relationship with technology and riding. The Jet could serve as a surrogate coach when you’re out on a solo training effort, or it could just put another data layer between you and your group ride. Having not yet tested the fully realized product, I’m on the fence. There might be some virtue in not having to look down at my handlebars all the time. But the bike is one of the few places I feel free to completely disengage. I’ll read your text messages later.

Still, riders like myself who have some reservations about the cycloborg scenario may just need to get past them. Eisenhardt says Recon’s technology “is relevant for any activity where you are in motion but depend on frequent information to enhance your performance.” That’s a pretty broad swath, and the company routinely fields a wide range of inquiries: from sailors, hunters, motocross riders. The wingsuit pilot Jeb Corliss was an enthusiastic early backer of Recon’s forthcoming Flight HUD, a version of its ski goggles that displays things like forward speed and glide ratio.

Corliss, in a promotional video, speaks of a longstanding wish, once fanciful, now emergent, to “have instrumentation like any pilot.” Fighter pilots, he says, “don’t have to fly on feel. They actually know” what they’re doing. An increasing body of research reinforces how important that can be. A study in the Journal of Orthopedic Sports and Physical Therapy noted that after a single trial with a feedback mechanism, runners could reduce “lower extremity loading”—literally changing the way they run. In another study, in the journal Sports Technology, alpine skiers reported better performance after getting audio feedback on lateral displacement via a sensor. Ubiquitous, accessible data only draws the feedback loop tighter. With that meta-awareness, says Corliss, athletes can “actually get better at what we’re doing.”

And so can you. Just not quite yet.

More on Wearable Tech

Read More

Free Newsletters

Dispatch This week's featured articles, reviews, and videos. Sent twice weekly.
News From the Field The most important breaking news from around the Web. Sent daily.
Outside GOOur hottest adventure-travel tips and trips. Sent occasionally.
Outside Partners Outside-approved deals and special offers from select partners. Sent occasionally.

Subscribe
to Outside
Save Over
70%

Magazine Cover

iPad Outside+ App Access Now Included!

Categories

Authors

Advertisement

$ad.smallDesc

$ad.smallDesc

$ad.smallDesc

Previous Posts

2014

2013

2012

Blog Roll

Current Issue Outside Magazine

Subscribe and get a great deal! Two free Buyer's Guides plus a free GoLite Sport Bottle. Monthly delivery of Outside—your ultimate resource for today's active lifestyle. All that and big savings!

Free Newsletters

Dispatch This week's featured articles, reviews, and videos. Sent twice weekly.
News From the Field The most important breaking news from around the Web. Sent daily.
Gear of the Day The latest products, reviews, and editors' picks. Coming soon.
Outside Partners Outside-approved deals and special offers from select partners. Sent occasionally.

Ask a Question

Our gear experts await your outdoor-gear-related questions. Go ahead, ask them anything.

* We might edit your question for length or clarity. If it's not about gear, we'll just ignore it.