diet advice on knee ligament injury

hello there, i was wondering if anybody else has any issues with their inner knee ligaments. i damaged my right ligamnt 4 years ago and i've been having problems with it ever since. i changed my diet a month ago and just when my right ligament healed perfectly my left knee ligament has just been strained. its really annoying.

i take glucosamine sulphate tablets, and loads of mackerel (i love it) i've also started eating about two cloves of garlic a day which has really helped repair my right leg ligament. i also eat alot of potatoes, pasta, and chickenas well, i push a hard gear, which is the cause of my ligament pain, probably.

i was wondering, are there any other changes i could make to my diet? i mainly want to build up some muscle in my legs and arms and repair my damaged ligaments.

A change in your diet will not fix that problem.

__________________
"There is alot of blather here that does not float the hooey barge." boudreaux 11/22/2005

Diet wont do diddley squat for your ligament pain. Simply get a more normal chainring set, and relax a bit, and you'll be able to ride just as fast as you do now, with less pain and less effort!

__________________
Martin Williams
Musician, Teacher, Cyclist

aw crap, well just thought i'd ask.

ok 57 might be considered unreasonable, but surely a 55 must be considered at least semi-reasonable?

edit: as i recall, a couple of years back i read a magazine which detailed the prices and specs of the tour de france riders, most were riding 53, but there was a guy riding a 54.

and i admit the 61 was ridiculous, but hitting 50mph+ down a hill was bloody brilliant!

55 is more common and reasonable. Not really necesary though. I was askin these kind of questions to my coaches years ago, and he game me a pretty good analogy to explain his idea.

Sure, you can drive a car with your feet if you want to, but that doesnt really make it a good idea!

I think you can see by looking at how nearly all the riders in the tour stick with the standard 53, how its not really necesary to go bigger.

We have better ratios on bikes these day so that we dont have to use huge rings.

And on a side note, I have a personal best top speed for a downhill at 68mph, sorry I didnt have a 61, just my trusty 53!

__________________
Martin Williams
Musician, Teacher, Cyclist

wow thats some speed.

ok i don't even use the 61 anymore, i'm using a 57. would it be totally outrageous then if i had a 53 chainring on the inside, with the 57? because seriously i could go no handed up most hills with a 53 - 21 gear, and then use the 57 for flats and deownhills?

Where exactly are these hills that you can ride no handed.

scotland.

so would that gearing be reasonable for most terrian?

sorry i just re-read what martin posted:

thats not really that good a metaphor, thats like saying, well if you wanna fly you can jump off a cliff if you want to, but you don't have any wings so i would avoid it if you can. i think he's been watching the flintstones too much...

Definately wouldn't want to be pushing a 53 up hills to often, thats some serious knee pain right there. My knees hurt just thinking about it.

a 53?! what, even a 53 - 21?

Maybe just try a 39

See how much easier it is!!!

I average about 25ish on most rides on my geared bikes, and almost never have to use my big ring, the 53. It does get used, just not constantly

__________________
Martin Williams
Musician, Teacher, Cyclist

i get over 110 RPM's constant with a 53, without exhaustion, i just got bored and thought getting a bigger ring would go faster, obviously not...

and i just found out that if i whack an 11t cog on the back of ma cassette, with a 53 or 55t chainring, i can get a ratio not far off that of a my chainrings.

anyways if the mods want to close this thread, go for it, thanks for the info everybody.

So you're typically riding around at 38 MPH (61 KPH) without exhaustion?

Hell, yesterday you didn't even know the definition of cadence, and now you're claiming elite professional speeds. I have to call BS on all your posts thus far.

__________________
"There is alot of blather here that does not float the hooey barge." boudreaux 11/22/2005

fantastic. ok, i didn't know what cadence meant and when i did eventually find out what it was, i realised its actually completely redundant and useless as all it describes is RPM (revolutions per minute) and anybody with half a brain can work out what that means, its pretty self-explanatory.

you seem pretty abbreviation obsessesed in here, its really weird. you even abbreciated cycle to C for god's sake, oops sorry, for GS.

anyways back to cadence, its redundant, call it RPM, its common sense, you don't need to make a word for the abbreviation.

so there ya go i'va always measured in RPM's just didn't know you called it 'cadence'. i've been cycling 110 RPM's since i was 13, on a crappy apollo mountain bike from halfords that cost £80.

i like this forum there are nice people in here, but i can only take so much criticism,

ooh actually if you don't believe me i'll take a picture of my chainring, howzat?
i'll need to do it tomorow, though.

Grinding your way up a hill in a tall gear at a low cadence is a sure-fire recipe for the knee problems you're getting.

Perhaps if you stopped re-injuring yourself each time you ride like this and got out of the way of your body, it might have a better chance of getting some repairs done.

It's not like what we're telling you is anything new. It's the combined knowledge of elite cycling coaches and biomechanists worldwide, and matches our own experience.