WhyFi

I'm sure that it is ideal to you, but I'm also willing to bet that you're creating a false equivalence between your idea of training and caloso's training and that the gulf between the two is significant. That's probably where you're getting the major disconnect.

Harold74

I'm under no illusion that @caloso and I train equivalently. I don't even know what "intervals" are other than, semantically, it seems reasonable to assume that they involve some manner of training in repeated cycles of oscillating intensity. That said, when I train, I'm out there doing my best. And it seems reasonable to assume that caloso is too. My attempting to understand his perspective is precisely why I've been asking for additional detail about it. No feat of empathy can ever truly get one completely outside of one's own head after all. So we talk about stuff...as gentlemen do.

WhyFi

Then why not accept that what's ideal for you may be significantly less so for him and for others that train like him? He's given a long list of reasons on his preferences (and it's a list that largely mirrors my own) and you've completely ignored it in favor of your reality.

You think you are, but you don't know what you don't know. If you have to guess at the nature of intervals, you're a babe in the woods. "I'm going pretty hard!" is a far cry from "I need to hold on to [120%] for another 30 seconds... I might not make it, but I'll probably puke, regardless."

Harold74

I do accept that and have accepted it all along. And I've indicated as much in my previous comments if you cared to read them closely.

What on earth makes you think that I've ignored his list? In at least two instances, I actually anticipated items on his list and tabled them myself in anticipation of what his answers might be.

Well that's a bit condescending. Sure, I'll take your word for it that I'm not really expending effort when I think and feel that I'm expending effort. I'll defer to your apparent wisdom on that. So what? For the umpteenth time, the whole reason that I've been asking caloso about his perspective is precisely because I want to better understand his perspective. And now, I do. What, for goodness sake, is the problem with that? Is it necessary that I change my own opinion before you'll allow that I respect caloso's?

mstateglfr 

While accurate, I also dont remember the last time I saw anyone outside running for exercise in cargo pants. I really cant remember the last time I saw anyone outside running for exercise in cargo shorts even. Its just not something I see...ever.
Why anyone would look at their closet before going for an exercise run and push their athletic shorts aside so they can pick out some cargo pants is beyond me.

WhyFi

Oh? Maybe you can point out where you've said, "that makes sense," as opposed to pivoting to the virtues of Hawaiian shirts or saying, "no, I don't think that's an apt comparison"?

But yeah, you've anticipated: simulated race conditions, aesthetics, and lack of alternative. Bravo - that's not condescending at all.

And yes - intensity makes a world of difference and it changes perspectives dramatically. If you're not willing to accept that, we're at an impasse.

Harold74

Alright. I ended one of my posts with the blurb below which was, basically, 100% me trying to anticipate how others view this issue in acknowledgment that they may feel differently than I. Note the italicizing of the first instance "me" in the original (it doesn't carry over to the quote). I stressed that "me" to acknowledge that I understand that my perspective is mine alone.

I'm sorry if that came across as condescending. That's now how I meant it. My main point was the simulated race conditions. And the only reason that I bothered to make that point, in that manner, was because calosto previously provided me with the rather terse response of "because it's comfortable" when, in reality, that desire for comfort is part in parcel with racers wanting to simulate racing conditions on bikes that are inherently uncomfortable when they train. How else was I to drill down to the deeper truth of it without, you know... talking about it?

Again, whatever makes you think that I do not accept that intensity makes a difference? I do, in fact, accept that.

wolfchild

I love wearing cargo pants because of it's utility, all those extra pockets are very useful...and I still look normal and blend in with the crowd. I have a pair of slim fitting cargo pants made form stretchy synthetic fabric. and they are the most comfortable pants I have ever worn, they're good for cycling, working out and all manner of athletic physical activities.

WhyFi

Where are you even getting this from?

The snark received when I informed you that you weren't familiar with pushing yourself the way those actually training push themselves?

cyclezen

I'll assume the 'now' in bold above is meant to be 'Not'... just seems to fit better... /pun
Not wanting to further get into the contentious side of this thread, I've resisted... But I may have a long term perspective, having started 'sport cycling' back in the mid-60's. When the options were 'shorts' or cycling wool shorts with chamois. Shorts from the get-go were NOT comfortable for rides of any length (1 hr +) or any intensity. Wool/Chamois proved far superior in every way.
Since then I have tried many different variations of shorts, different fabrics, different cuts - all still inadequate & uncomfortable for any of my normal rides.
I do shop with my bike, and have settled on MTB shorts with a spandex liner and small chamois pad - works, has good pockets and doesn't create attention issues in the shopping environment.
BUT, as Caloso noted, the dedicated modern cycling kit for road cycling is purpose built, versatile and MOST comfortable, whether doing anything called 'training', racing or just going for a rec ride. For me, from wool, in 1966, thru acrylic and to the current variations in road cycling kit, it's still the most comfortable stuff available. Offers the best utility/function, and with good layering, the most versatility.
Ultimately I don;t really care what others think about my dress for cycling - it works best for me. If I offend, they can look the other way.
But I also have EXCEPTIONS to the some of the latest iterations...
Cycling shorts/bibs - most of the current stuff has TOO MUCH padding in the ersatz chamois. It is often uncomfortable, promotes heat, doesn't really reduce friction issues any better than plain thin chamois, can be irritating on longer rides and cause blood circulation issues and 'numbness' from over-padding, poor design and placement. AND did I say 'HOT' ?
I prefer plain chamois, and if with a very light, thin mid layer, that;s ok, mostly. NO padding, please !
I actually bought a bunch (8 pr) of Pearl Izumi shorts I liked, when I saw they were going to the heavy padded chamois styles - I'm on my last pair. Same with Giordana Bibs...
I'm sad, both supplies are almost exhausted... Thankfully I found some Louis Garneau Bibs which have about as minimal padding as I could find and the fabric breathes well - small stockpile of those on hand...
I do like the newer, non-gripper shorts, where there's a wide elastic band to hold the short leg in place - lots more comfy and they seem to work/hold better when I'm wearing leg warmers - +++ !
Next rant... LOL! Crew length sock thing - fashion, I don;t get it. It's not really 'aero', its just more sock... I'll use crew length when temps are below 45 and wearing thermal leg warmers...
Otherwise, old school - quarter length socks, just above the ankle ... I know ... Old Kook !!! LOL! OK, longer length socks if one tends to varicose veins issues...

...leaving jerseys/tops SS & LS, arm warmers, leg warmers, vests, gloves, shoes, glasses, etc to some future long thread in the coming 'off season' (from the looks of the current threads, we must already be in the 'off season'.... LOL!) Oh my, means we're due for a Helmutt thread ! uuuggghhh....
Ride on
Yuri

livedarklions

Who is that aimed at? Padding may or may not be optimal for the individual rider regardless of time and intensity. If anything, I think your comment might understate the likelihood that someone who rides "casually" might need padding and someone who rides long and intense might not.

​​​​​I'll put it crudely, I've got enough muscle on my butt that padding is rather beside the point.

livedarklions

I don't like flappy clothing whe riding, but don't doubt that the Hawaiian shirt would be comfortable.

livedarklions

Could you work any harder to try to find something offensive in really innocuous statements and questions?

downhillmaster

At the very least I think it is safe to say that a certain % of casual cyclists wear spandex mainly for show.
While another group of cyclists refuse to wear anything cycling related out of pure stubbornness and ignorance.

shelbyfv

I've seen mention above of Hawaiian shirts. I was a fan for many years, though not for cycling. Currently, they've been adopted as a uniform by some extremely deplorable folks. Give some thought this, Google if you aren't aware. Just a heads up to prevent embarrassment.

livedarklions

Leave it to you to turn every thread into an insult fest. You're "answering" a question nobody asked.

Non-cyclists are now wearing cycling shorts for fashion (it's a fad right now), so I guess that part is safe, kind of. I wouldn't assume that just because someone is casual about their riding, that would mean they only wear spandex for show. But this thread is about padding, I don't think a lot of people are wearing that for show.

The "pure stubbornness and ignorance" thing is one of your usual insults of anyone who doesn't think exactly as you do. You honestly think people are unaware such gear exists? Or that they're not in a better position to figure out if they need or want it than someone else? I know what I like, and don't see a need to change, is that "pure stubbornness" or an informed decision? Who the hell is in a position to make that judgment? Why would they want to? Nice troll.

livedarklions

Dammit, do those jerks have to ruin everything fun?

WhyFi

I didn't take offense to any of it - that's like getting upset with a child. It's just silly to ask questions, get answers, and then respond with another, "but why?" It's very Zoolander.

WhyFi

I think that they're both fair and it's probably one of the least intentionally offensive statements that I can recall seeing from that poster. *shrug* Do you really think that there isn't a non-zero number of either?

livedarklions

This after several back and forth posts and you accusing HIM of being condescending? Literally, the most condescending thing you could've said! Not buying that bit about not taking offense, your responses to him have ALL been complaints about his attitude.

I don't get why every thread about kit needs to turn into a fight but I think a big part of it is that there's a group of people, yourself included, that choose to hear "I don't use X" as an assertion that "no one should use X" when nothing like that is stated or implied. These aren't matters of dogma, they're very practical questions of what you use and why. Answer them or don't, but maybe quit thrashing people for asking why other people are doing things differently. No one's coming to take away your kit.

livedarklions

​​​​​​I don't think "ignorance" and " stubbornness " can be taken as anything other than insults. That isn't obvious? Since this evaluation of people's motivations is entirely a subjective judgment, the notion of nonzero number is meaningless.

As I said, noncyclists are wearing bike shorts, so of course the first statement pretty much has to be true.

WhyFi

Acknowledged. I entered the discussion, against my better judgement, because I thought that he might be asking questions in good faith. I no longer believe that.

Eh? Are you saying that there isn't a whole lot of insinuations (and sometimes direct statements) to the affect of, "there's no practical reason to wear cycling-specific clothing" being slung about? Some aren't saying that, but a lot are. And I'm not thrashing anyone for asking - I'm thrashing those for not listening and accepting.

WhyFi

I think it's obvious that you identify with the non-specific clothing wearers and so you're taking offense, even though he's not accusing all, or even many, of the transgression.

Further, I would bet that most that *do* wear cycling specific clothing had some reservations about doing so at first, and likely fit that description before converting - I know that I certainly did. Yes, my reservations were partly stubbornness (I wasn't sure that I wanted to be one of "them") and partly ignorance (I didn't know that spending a lot of time in the saddle would hurt my ass so much and that apparel could alleviate that).

tomato coupe

Can anyone tell me where the trainwreck emoji is?

livedarklions

That poster gets no benefit of the doubt from me. Sorry, but I've been on the other end of the "you only think you're comfortable because you don't know any better" condescension on bf too many times for me to just let that slide. Also, why is it even being raised? It's got nothing to do with the op.