Aerobic capacity, Lance, LeMond, etc numbers, rowing machine as cycling workout

[Doug]

Hey all,

I came across this page while searching for some other bike info. A chart listing some cal/min
aerobic capacity figures for great cyclists shows some interesting numbers:

http://pwp.value.net/~fitness/cycnews.htm#6

[summation: Lance, Indurain, LeMond, Merckx around 30 cal/min]

Just last night I was on a modern rowing machine with wattage, cal/min, etc electronic readings. I
could hold 16.6 cal/min for a good bit of time and 13.3 cal/min fairly easily. Interesting to see
such enormously high numbers for the greats.

In researching weight/indoor training for cycling, I've not seen much mention of a rowing machine.
Although it doesn't tax my legs enough to be useful strictly in that regard, it does give me a
whopping good aerobic workout without having to drive a stationary bike hard or painfully pounding a
treadmill. I try to save my knees as much as possible, so I actually limit my miles/time per week
pedaling and avoid knee impact workouts. The rower, using both legs simultaneously to drive and
being done while sitting, is easy on my knees.

Doug

 

[Hawke]

"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Hey all,
>
> I came across this page while searching for some other bike info. A chart listing some cal/min
> aerobic capacity figures for great cyclists shows some interesting numbers:
>
> http://pwp.value.net/~fitness/cycnews.htm#6
>
> [summation: Lance, Indurain, LeMond, Merckx around 30 cal/min]
>
> Just last night I was on a modern rowing machine with wattage, cal/min, etc electronic readings. I
> could hold 16.6 cal/min for a good bit of time and 13.3 cal/min fairly easily. Interesting to see
> such enormously high numbers for the greats.
>
> In researching weight/indoor training for cycling, I've not seen much mention of a rowing machine.
> Although it doesn't tax my legs enough to be useful strictly in that regard, it does give me a
> whopping good aerobic workout without having to drive a stationary bike hard or painfully pounding
> a treadmill. I try to save my knees as much as possible, so I actually limit my miles/time per
> week pedaling and avoid knee impact workouts. The rower, using both legs simultaneously to drive
> and being done while sitting, is easy on my knees.
>
> Doug

Actually by not working your knees you are setting yourself up for a knee injury when you do need to
work your knees hard.

Hawke

 

[Jon Bond]

"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Hey all,
>
> I came across this page while searching for some other bike info. A chart listing some cal/min
> aerobic capacity figures for great cyclists shows some interesting numbers:
>
> http://pwp.value.net/~fitness/cycnews.htm#6
>
> [summation: Lance, Indurain, LeMond, Merckx around 30 cal/min]
>
> Just last night I was on a modern rowing machine with wattage, cal/min, etc electronic readings. I
> could hold 16.6 cal/min for a good bit of time and 13.3 cal/min fairly easily. Interesting to see
> such enormously high numbers for the greats.
>
> In researching weight/indoor training for cycling, I've not seen much mention of a rowing machine.
> Although it doesn't tax my legs enough to be useful strictly in that regard, it does give me a
> whopping good aerobic workout without having to drive a stationary bike hard or painfully pounding
> a treadmill. I try to save my knees as much as possible, so I actually limit my miles/time per
> week pedaling and avoid knee impact workouts. The rower, using both legs simultaneously to drive
> and being done while sitting, is easy on my knees.
>
> Doug

I was a coxswain for 4 years (8 seasons) - trust me, rowers still screw up their knees. When you're
really driving on 'em, you can still screw 'em up. usually back problems first, though!

What's that per 500m? Thats the way I'm familiar with it. If you know the conversion, see what a
maintained 1:35 split is - we had a kid that could hold that pretty indefinitely, and get splits
down near the one mark. Actually, the kid I was out riding with today held pretty similar splits,
closer to 1:40 for a 2km piece... and he's only like 160lbs or so. Insane. You raced the two on the
water (switch them between boats and note the difference), and the lighter kid would just demolish
the heavier kid. He's kinda hard to keep up with on the bike too

Jon Bond

 

[John Retchford]

"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Hey all,
I could hold 16.6 cal/min for a
> good bit of time and 13.3 cal/min fairly easily. Interesting to see such enormously high numbers
> for the greats.
>
Where do people dredge up units like that? The international unit of power is the watt
(joule/second). I wonder what motivates equipment manufacturers to "invent" units of their own.
Perhaps they are concerned that people might make comparisons if they use the accepted units.

John Retchford

 

[Jon Bond]

"John Retchford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hey all,
> I could hold 16.6 cal/min for a
> > good bit of time and 13.3 cal/min fairly easily. Interesting to see such enormously high numbers
> > for the greats.
> >
> Where do people dredge up units like that? The international unit of
power
> is the watt (joule/second). I wonder what motivates equipment
manufacturers
> to "invent" units of their own. Perhaps they are concerned that people might make comparisons if
> they use the accepted units.
>
> John Retchford

Good Ergometers measure watts, although the primary unit used for crew is your "split" time -
minutes:seconds/500m

Jon Bond

 

[Doug]

>I was a coxswain for 4 years (8 seasons) - trust me, rowers still screw up their knees. When you're
>really driving on 'em, you can still screw 'em up. usually back problems first, though!

Jon,

I've always been fascinated by how rowers collapse in sheer exhaustion. I just don't see that in any
other sport. Maybe occasionally in cross country skiing.

>What's that per 500m? Thats the way I'm familiar with it. If you know the conversion, see what a
>maintained 1:35 split is

Now I understand why the machine was showing a "/500m" time.
16.6 cal/min was about 1:55 or 2:00 as I recall. I'll have to check Fri night.

>we had a kid that could hold that pretty indefinitely, and get splits down near the one mark.

17:00 would presumably be about 30 cals/min. That's quite high.

>Actually, the kid I was out riding with today held pretty similar splits, closer to 1:40 for a 2km
>piece... and he's only like 160lbs or so. Insane.

Interesting indeed. I want some sort of measure against someone other than a world class cyclist for
my aerobic capacity and now I have it. I'll try to hold 1:40/500m for 2000m and see what happens.

My problem is form. In pulling 2:00 it feels like 80% arm effort. I'm learning as I go. Driving
first with the legs with delayed arm action, or trying to pull slowly and in sync with the legs,
which is best? Any tips? My limit is because my arms get fatigued. Or maybe it's because my legs are
in such good shape my arms are naturally the weak link.

The machine was a "Concept 2" I think, with a nifty LCD display and variable wind resistance, with
exhaust that blows on the user.

Doug

 

[Doug]

>> I could hold 16.6 cal/min for a
>>
>Where do people dredge up units like that? The international unit of power is the watt
>(joule/second). I wonder what motivates equipment manufacturers to "invent" units of their own.
>Perhaps they are concerned that people might make comparisons if they use the accepted units.

The rower I used had many units of measure: cal/hr, cal/min, watts, and time/500m. I like cals/min
and cals/hr because I think of calories when doing anything athletic, for the simple reason that
calories are the unit of food. Watts doesn't mean much to me in human performance. It's just the way
I've grown to accept units. This coming from an EE too.

Doug

 

[Doug]

>Actually by not working your knees you are setting yourself up for a knee injury when you do need
>to work your knees hard.

Hawke,

I'm worried about that too. I'm trying to walk a fine line of use and overuse, especially since my
knees hit a wall of sensitivity that's disturbingly predictable.

Here is my current weekly routine, at the most strenuous it will probably ever be, based on my time
and energy. I'd appreciate some thoughts on it with respect to my knees, since they are far and away
my weak point.

Sat: 60-65 mile ride with 3000 ft vertical. Very strenuous.

Sun: league softball game, 30-35 mile ride with 1200 ft vertical.

Mon: nothing

Tues: full body gym workout of 3+ hrs. The only seriously knee impacting exercise is a 250 lbs. leg
press, 3 sets of 25, but knee not bent full 90 deg. on recommendation from physical therapist. Other
less knee impacting exercises include 30 mins spinning with light to mod resistance, good sweat
worked up; 30 or so mins row machine. Hamstring, glut, calf, and everything else I do doesn't tax
the knees.

Wed: nothing

Thurs: full body gym, 3+ hrs as before

Fri: usually nothing, but sometimes a light gym workout of aerobics or basketball.

I used to do 300 or even 350 lbs on the leg press, 3 reps of 15. But I've changed to lower weight
and more reps and prefer it. The burning at the end feels very much like cycling, as opposed to
running out of sheer power with the heavier weight. The current 250 is not bad on my knees, so I'd
rather not increase it unless for some compelling reason.

Thanks, Doug

 

[John Retchford]

"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> The rower I used had many units of measure: cal/hr, cal/min, watts, and time/500m. I like cals/min
> and cals/hr because I think of calories when doing anything athletic, for the simple reason that
> calories are the unit of food. Watts doesn't mean much to me in human performance. It's just the
> way I've grown to accept units. This coming from an EE too.
>
Calorie is an archaic unit of energy - nothing especially to do with energy from food. I suspect
that the rest of the world (I am assuming that you live in USA) uses joules for the energy derived
from food. This is certainly true for Europe, Australia and the scientific literature. Packaged food
reports the energy content in joules. Joule/second is watt - but you knew that, being an EE. Why
make it hard when the accepted units allow easy computation?

John Retchford

 

[Amaresh R. Josh]

Doug <[email protected]> writes:
> My problem is form. In pulling 2:00 it feels like 80% arm effort. I'm learning as I go. Driving
> first with the legs with delayed arm action, or trying to pull slowly and in sync with the legs,
> which is best? Any tips? My limit is because my arms get fatigued. Or maybe it's because my legs
> are in such good shape my arms are naturally the weak link.
>
> The machine was a "Concept 2" I think, with a nifty LCD display and variable wind resistance, with
> exhaust that blows on the user.

see their web site (www.concept2.com) for info on form. it's basically legs first, then arms then
back. and the opposite on the return.

also, the calorie reading on the erg is an estimate of how many kcal the rower is burning. unlike
the wattage reading which is a measure of the actial power (force on the chain x the speed if the
flywheel).

amaresh
--
Amaresh R. Joshi | "Across the pale parabola of joy...." [email protected] | Michigan State University

 

[Raptor]

Doug wrote:
>>I was a coxswain for 4 years (8 seasons) - trust me, rowers still screw up their knees. When
>>you're really driving on 'em, you can still screw 'em up. usually back problems first, though!
>
>
> Jon,
>
> I've always been fascinated by how rowers collapse in sheer exhaustion. I just don't see that in
> any other sport. Maybe occasionally in cross country skiing.

X-country skiers collapse like flies after a hard race. Both exercises are grueling workouts.

The gym I go to has these Concept machines. I like them for warmups. I don't trust the "calorie/hr"
readout of any exercise machine, because isn't that dependent on my metabolism, and how can the
machine know? I've been using the /500m measure on the rower. Maybe I'll watch watts now.

>>What's that per 500m? Thats the way I'm familiar with it. If you know the conversion, see what a
>>maintained 1:35 split is
>
>
> Now I understand why the machine was showing a "/500m" time.
> 16.6 cal/min was about 1:55 or 2:00 as I recall. I'll have to check Fri night.
>
>
>>we had a kid that could hold that pretty indefinitely, and get splits down near the one mark.
>
>
> 1:00 would presumably be about 30 cals/min. That's quite high.

Lowest I've ever been able to get the /500m time is 1:3x. I don't think I ever got it to 1:30, and
am starting to suspect the machine doesn't go that low.

>>Actually, the kid I was out riding with today held pretty similar splits, closer to 1:40 for a 2km
>>piece... and he's only like 160lbs or so. Insane.
>
>
> Interesting indeed. I want some sort of measure against someone other than a world class cyclist
> for my aerobic capacity and now I have it. I'll try to hold 1:40/500m for 2000m and see what
> happens.

That is extremely hard. I think I can manage 1:50 for the ~16 minutes required, but I haven't tried
it. That pace is borderline LT for me.

> My problem is form. In pulling 2:00 it feels like 80% arm effort. I'm learning as I go. Driving
> first with the legs with delayed arm action, or trying to pull slowly and in sync with the legs,
> which is best? Any tips? My limit is because my arms get fatigued. Or maybe it's because my legs
> are in such good shape my arms are naturally the weak link.
>
> The machine was a "Concept 2" I think, with a nifty LCD display and variable wind resistance, with
> exhaust that blows on the user.

The form that works best for me is a strong thrust with the legs, combined with a firm back and arm
follow-through. Since I'm usually warming up on these machines before moving to another exercise, I
let my form go all over the place.

When I first started rowing these machines, I could easily turn over 40 spm. Now my natural rhythm
is about 30, and I can't row with any power if I try to go faster.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "Let me tell you what else I'm worried about. I'm
worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our
view of the military is for the military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and therefore,
prevent war from happening in the first place." George Bush, Nov. 6, 2000

 

[Doug]

>> The machine was a "Concept 2" I think, with a nifty LCD display and variable wind resistance,
>> with exhaust that blows on the user.
>
>see their web site (www.concept2.com) for info on form. it's basically legs first, then arms then
>back. and the opposite on the return.
>
>also, the calorie reading on the erg is an estimate of how many kcal the rower is burning. unlike
>the wattage reading which is a measure of the actial power (force on the chain x the speed if the
>flywheel).
>

Thanks for the link. I see the proper technique is "delayed arm action." Going to hit the
rower tonight.

Doug

 

[Douglas Landau]

> >Actually, the kid I was out riding with today held pretty similar splits, closer to 1:40 for a
> >2km piece... and he's only like 160lbs or so. Insane.
>
> Interesting indeed. I want some sort of measure against someone other than a world class cyclist
> for my aerobic capacity and now I have it. I'll try to hold 1:40/500m for 2000m and see what
> happens.

1:40, insane? I thought of it as not too shabby but not insane. 1:40 over 2K would give you a time
of 6:40. If I remember correctly that is exactly the qualifying time for the CRASH-B indoor races.
That would make it sort of a baseline for being race-ready, I would think.

Now to hold 1:40 indefinately, that's another story. I am 5'10 can hold
2:50 for an hour. My best 2K time is 6:56, or 1:44 times 4. I'm a recreational rower and not a
competitive racer. I would be proud to hold 1:40 for 2K, and get a 6:40, but would think that
national level lightweight rowers tend to pull around 6:20 and below.

It depends on height though not weight or even. Compare your times to men your same height.

See http://www.concept2.com/sranking/rankings.asp for more comparison points.

If I remember correctly, doing 1:50 is like putting out 250 watts.

> My problem is form. In pulling 2:00 it feels like 80% arm effort. I'm learning as I go. Driving
> first with the legs with delayed arm action, or trying to pull slowly and in sync with the legs,
> which is best? Any tips? My limit is because my arms get fatigued. Or maybe it's because my legs
> are in such good shape my arms are naturally the weak link.

Keep your back straight at all times to avoid injury. Pivot it at the bottom. Drive with the legs
and back at the same time. Arms really don't come into it much - actually it's 95% legs and back
arms just at the very end. Square your shoulders at the beginning of the stroke and hang from the
handle with your fingertips. Do NOT "shoot your slide" which means to let your butt move backwards
first, without doing any work, leaving you to row with your back and arms only.

Oh, and the ratio of time you spend in the drive versus the recovery should be approximately 1 to 2.
Try to relax and get a rest as you come back up the slide.

Doug

 

[John Forrest To]

Doug wrote:

> I've always been fascinated by how rowers collapse in sheer exhaustion. I just don't see that in
> any other sport. Maybe occasionally in cross country skiing.

The reason rowers collapse at the end of a race is that they don't get hurt doing it. Skiers too.

Try collapsing at the end of a bike race -- if you crash it hurts. Cyclists often stop pedalling
when they cross the line and coast -- they're not providing any propulsion but expending the tiny
bit of energy to keep up and avoid falling.

It's not a function of how demanding the sport is.

JT
--
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged

Visit http://www.jt10000.com
*******************************************

 

[Jon Bond]

"Douglas Landau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >Actually, the kid I was out riding with today held pretty similar
splits,
> > >closer to 1:40 for a 2km piece... and he's only like 160lbs or so.
Insane.
> >
> > Interesting indeed. I want some sort of measure against someone other than a world class cyclist
> > for my aerobic capacity and now I have it. I'll try to hold 1:40/500m for 2000m and see what
> > happens.
>
> 1:40, insane? I thought of it as not too shabby but not insane. 1:40 over 2K would give you a time
> of 6:40. If I remember correctly that is exactly the qualifying time for the CRASH-B indoor
> races. That would make it sort of a baseline for being race-ready, I would think.

Yeah charles river all star has beens

This is when he was 16, mind you - forgot to mention that. I talked to him yesterday (he's a riding
buddy) and his best time was a 6:32.

> Now to hold 1:40 indefinately, that's another story. I am 5'10 can hold
> 1:50 for an hour. My best 2K time is 6:56, or 1:44 times 4. I'm a recreational rower and not a
> competitive racer. I would be proud to hold 1:40 for 2K, and get a 6:40, but would think that
> national level lightweight rowers tend to pull around 6:20 and below.

Junior rowers national selection camp invitation cutoff is about 6:25 I believe, but thats for
guaranteed invitation - you can get in without that. Plus, technique on the water makes a massive
difference.

> It depends on height though not weight or even. Compare your times to men your same height.

For rowing, it matters. You need to accelerate your weight every time you take a stroke, as well as
make up for the increased drag of the boat sitting lower in the water, plus if you rush the slide,
it can really screw up boat dynamics and rhythm, especially if you're heavy. Its not as significant
on the erg, but IME, it does make a difference. The big kid on the team, 210 or so, was about 6'3,
and the kid above is about 6'1.5". On ergs, the big kid had one of the best jr. erg scores in the
country, on the water, he got destroyed by the other kid.

> See http://www.concept2.com/sranking/rankings.asp for more comparison points.
>
> If I remember correctly, doing 1:50 is like putting out 250 watts.
>
> > My problem is form. In pulling 2:00 it feels like 80% arm effort. I'm learning as I go. Driving
> > first with the legs with delayed arm action, or trying to pull slowly and in sync with the legs,
> > which is best? Any tips? My limit is because my arms get fatigued. Or maybe it's because my legs
> > are in such good shape my arms are naturally the weak link.
>
> Keep your back straight at all times to avoid injury. Pivot it at the bottom.

Kind of - a slight natural bend is ok. If you try to sit up too straight, you're going to pull
things. Think of it this way: Your abs and lower back should be working at all times. However, the
back bend is something that you LET happen, not make happen - focus on pivoting from the hips.

> Drive with the legs and back at the same time.

There are a few different techniques, schools of thought if you will. The one you'll see in elite
competition for the most part, however, is with arms and back blending in around the last third of
the drive. Think of hanging off the oar, when you bend your arms you lose power transfer.

> Arms really don't come into it much - actually it's 95% legs and back arms just at the very end.
> Square your shoulders at the beginning of the stroke and hang from
the
> handle with your fingertips.

Tip: you'll see some people do fingertips. It'll be ok for ergs and sculling, but its not the best
way. Mental excercise: how many pull ups can you do? Ok, how many fingertip pullups can you do? Get
the meat of your hand on there, but make sure your wrists are still flat.

> Do NOT "shoot your slide" which means to let your butt move backwards first, without doing any
> work, leaving you to row with your back and arms only.

Good advice - forcus on keeping the lower back and abs tight.

> Oh, and the ratio of time you spend in the drive versus the recovery should be approximately 1 to
> 2. Try to relax and get a rest as you come back up the slide.

Yup, good again. It can actually help to count out loud, as long as you don't have any image
hangups! (Drive 2 3 drive 2 3.... you can substitute one for drive, of course, or any other one
sylable word you want)

> Doug

good luck with the rowing! I outgrew coxing, so I'm out of the sport for now - even though the crew
team is begging me to come back

Jon Bond

 

[Jon Bond]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug wrote:
>
> > I've always been fascinated by how rowers collapse in sheer exhaustion. I just don't see that in
> > any other sport. Maybe occasionally in cross country skiing.
>
> The reason rowers collapse at the end of a race is that they don't get hurt doing it. Skiers too.
>
> Try collapsing at the end of a bike race -- if you crash it hurts. Cyclists often stop pedalling
> when they cross the line and coast -- they're not providing any propulsion but expending the tiny
> bit of energy to keep up and avoid falling.
>
> It's not a function of how demanding the sport is.
>
> JT

Um... I've seen rowers get flipped out of boats from their oars catching the water when they
collapse... seen another get his head sliced open the same way... and people literally pass out
after races. What you can't hear from shore is all the rowers gasping and crying out in pain - its
kinda disturbing sometimes. I have seen people collapse after mountain bike races, but nowhere near
as many. And my friends who do both say rowing is much more painful and a lot harder.

Jon Bond

 

[John Forrest To]

"Jon Bond" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:U9exa.861239$3D1.491301@sccrnsc01...

> Um... I've seen rowers get flipped out of boats from their oars catching the water when they
> collapse...

> seen another get his head sliced open the same way...

Did the rowers expect that danger?

> and people literally pass out after races. What you can't hear from shore is all the rowers
> gasping and crying out in pain - its kinda disturbing sometimes. I have seen people collapse after
> mountain bike races, but nowhere near as many. And my friends who do both say rowing is much more
> painful and a lot harder.

Do your friends do mountain bike races of one to ten minutes in length? I've seen extreme pain in
short cycling time trials and races ending with climbs.

And the friends I know who did both quit bike racing, so I guess that proves bike racing
is tougher.*

This sort of "yeah, my sport is really the toughest/hardest" is laughable.

JT

* I'm being facetious.

--
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged

Visit http://www.jt10000.com
*******************************************

 

[Jon Bond]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jon Bond" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:U9exa.861239$3D1.491301@sccrnsc01...
>
> > Um... I've seen rowers get flipped out of boats from their oars catching the water when they
> > collapse...
>
> > seen another get his head sliced open the same way...
>
> Did the rowers expect that danger?

No, they were in too much pain

> > and people literally pass out after races. What you can't hear from shore is all the rowers
> > gasping and crying out in pain - its kinda disturbing sometimes. I have seen people collapse
> > after mountain bike races, but nowhere near as many. And my friends who do both say rowing is
> > much more painful and a lot harder.
>
> Do your friends do mountain bike races of one to ten minutes in length? I've seen extreme pain in
> short cycling time trials and races ending with climbs.

Also did head races of approx 20 minutes in length, which is more comprable to a very short
bike race.

> And the friends I know who did both quit bike racing, so I guess that proves bike racing is
> tougher.*
>
> This sort of "yeah, my sport is really the toughest/hardest" is laughable.
>
> JT
>
> * I'm being facetious.

Heh, I don't row, never really have (ok, like twice, but no big deal). I sat in the boat, yelled,
and steered. Now lemme tell you, THATS the hardest!!!! Although I guess I do know of a cox who puked
after a race... lemme tell you, he still hasn't heard the end of THAT one!

Jon Bond

 

[Douglas Landau]

> > The reason rowers collapse at the end of a race is that they don't get hurt doing it.
> > Skiers too.
> >
> > Try collapsing at the end of a bike race -- if you crash it hurts. Cyclists often stop pedalling
> > when they cross the line and coast -- they're not providing any propulsion but expending the
> > tiny bit of energy to keep up and avoid falling.
> >
> > It's not a function of how demanding the sport is.
> >
> > JT
>
> Um... I've seen rowers get flipped out of boats from their oars catching the water when they
> collapse... seen another get his head sliced open the same way... and people literally pass out
> after races. What you can't hear from shore is all the rowers gasping and crying out in pain - its
> kinda disturbing sometimes. I have seen people collapse after mountain bike races, but nowhere
> near as many. And my friends who do both say rowing is much more painful and a lot harder.

It is. Because more muscles are involved in the rowing stroke than in the pedal stroke, it's
possible to work harder doing it, and get more knackered in the process.

Doug

 

[W K]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug wrote:
>
> > I've always been fascinated by how rowers collapse in sheer exhaustion. I just don't see that in
> > any other sport. Maybe occasionally in cross country skiing.
>
> The reason rowers collapse at the end of a race is that they don't get hurt doing it. Skiers too.
>
> Try collapsing at the end of a bike race -- if you crash it hurts. Cyclists often stop pedalling
> when they cross the line and coast -- they're not providing any propulsion but expending the tiny
> bit of energy to keep up and avoid falling.

If we're talking about the TdF I wonder whether the riders don't push themselves to the absolute
limit. In most other sports after a really hard race they can rest for a week, but in the tour they
have to get up the next day and do it all again.