"Reco Diver" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dan Volker" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
> > > > I think road cycling by itself, promotes core strength weaknesses which you need to deal
> > > > with on your road back to fitness.
> > >
> > > As compared to what?
> >
> > As compared to Karate, or speed skating, or mountain biking....
>
> Go tell that to Glen Winkle ... More to the point, how is it that road cycling "promotes core
> strength weaknesses"?
Look at the postural components of fitness, and the postural issues evident on a huge number of road
cyclists. If they all did a huge stretch routine daily, or Pilates, or karate also, they would not
have these issues to impair their absolute fitness, but the reality is, most cyclists don't spend
the time with the stretching they should...And remember, this discussion is more about the average
person who wants to get back into shape--it is not specifically about members of the US Olympic team
who have mandatory daily stretching, daily massage, etc.
To get a bit more critical, look at what cycling alone does to most cat 3's and 2's who ONLY do
cycling as a sport---you see a body type which looks like they are de-evolving toward "Tyranosaurus
Rex", with a tiny upper body and vestigial arms & shoulders---their whole body is in their legs. I
see this type of "training" most cat 3's and 2's do as overdeveloping one area, and underdeveloping
many others. Mountain biking forces you to contract muscles all over your upper body constantly, as
the trail pitches them around on the bike---in contrast, road cyclists go for an almost zen-like
quiet of upper body muscles, so that they don't waste oxygen or blood sugar on muscles which are not
adding speed to the bike--I believe good time trialers can actually "shunt" blood more directly to
the large primary muscles of cycling, and away from muscles useless to them, such as lats, pecs,
shoulders, etc. To whatever extent this actually happens, this will clearly NOT help in developing
these muscles.
And back to the bigger issue of core strength weaknesses, again, the discussion is not about Cat
1's, or pros, but about the "average joe" who already has severe core strength weaknesses ( part of
having a big gut
. In this scenario, I see road cycling and its attendant postural and muscle specificity, to be a
good way to make their existing imbalances worse....If they were to ADD Pilates, or karate, or a
good Gym workout that included core strength exercises, then I'd say the road cycling was great--
but most will NOT.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > Mountain bikes will have you in a much better orientation on the
bike
> > for
> > > > your mass. You can use a hard tail if you want to ride with slicks
on
> > the
> > > > road, but if you do off-road trails with much in the way of bumps,
don't
> > > > listen to the little guys who think a hard tail is an acceptable
ride
> > for
> > > > you.
> > >
> > > Here's a hint ... try not to listen to guys who interchange "mass" and "weight" at random.
> >
> > Here's a hint for you...I was just trying to help,
>
> "Try is the first step to failure." H.S.
If only I had known a "god of the sports physiology universe" had been monitoring this list, I would
not have posted--I'd have known you would have helped this person. Usenet does not typically benefit
from this form of daily assistance from above, and as hard as this may be for you to accept, quite a
bit of benefit DOES come from usenet related discussions. I could give you examples of where it has
actually saved lives
>
> > For those who have not read up on this, the calculation of your oxygen processing ability is
> > divided by your body weight--meaning the heavier
you
> > are, the smaller the VO2 max number---and in fact, the harder it is to compete in an activity
> > where a big premium is placed on raw aerobic power--such as hill climbing.
>
> Or time trialing.
As I'm sure you know, it is far more involved than this. The vast majority of cat 2 or cat 1, 140
and 150 pound riders will have a significantly higher VO2 max than the 220 lb time trialler( in same
cat) . However, many other factors will come into play in a flat 40K event----the air resistance of
the rider is a huge portion of this, as the rider is averaging close to 30 mph. As the surface area
increases as a square function, and the rider's volume as a cube function, the higher wattage the
big rider can generate has "relatively less" wind resistance to overcome, per pound of bodyweight.
Also, the big velodrome type rider can have far more anerobic capacity( which will help in an
anerobic threshold ride, and can shave some time off the final half mile as they increase effort to
100% HR) , they will have a much larger buffer potential for lactic acid, and they may "tolerate"
high levels of lactate far better than a smal rider ( I'm saying "may"--its just one more issue that
"can" come into play).
You could probably add several other supporting factors to this list, if you cared to
>
> > There are very few cyclists that can weigh 225 pounds and still have a competitive VO2 max
> > (competitive in cycling at a cat 1 level would be between 65 ml/KG and 80ml/kg --just an
> > approximation).
>
> But it happens ... (Name drop) Charles Bean, California State Omnium champion, tipped the scales
> at close to two and a quarter when he won the championship (and still was a healthy ~200 when I
> was his assistant coach for two seasons).
>
> So why not use METS? is it becuase you are comparing athletes trained for aerobic capacity with
> athletes trained for anaerobic capacity. To put it simply, you are comparing Roger Dunkley to John
> Carlos or Glen Winkle to Marty Nothstein.
Pretty much, and I like your examples
But I'd defend this because when we are talking about the
huge variety of body types and athletic backgrounds which this usenet group is composed of, the
easier comparitive tool is VO2 max. I'd also add that while I liked using VO2 max as a measure of my
own fitness when I was bike racing, kickboxing, or doing a Technical Dive at 300 feet( where we used
custom WKPP tables for decompression, individualized to each of us by VO2 max--thanks to George
Irvine, Dr. Bill Hamilton, and Bill Mee) , I understand that most people on the NG will not have an
interest or even significant benefit from measuring VO2 max, Mets, or any other high end testing---
beyond body fat testing
> .
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > and far more muscular,
> > >
> > > Lean muscle/kg? or Type I to type II muscle fiber count?
> >
> > You need to be riding more and pontificating less ;-)
>
> You are talking with great arm waving gestures, yet you say so little. You use abiguous terms like
> "more muscular" and "strength to weight ratio" and even when you define strength in terms of watts
> you don't give a T, leaving your definition open to interpretation (peak watts? toatl watts?).
As if most readers here in this NG will care. More importantly, you "knew" what I was saying, but
pedantically decided to chide me for the way I said it. I think you could have a great deal to offer
me, and many other people on this NG, but I'd request you worry more about the final package of
knowledge you are leaving people with----and that you consider people will have more interest if you
speal/write in terms they understand, and with examples they can apply to themselves. Most people
care about issues which relate to them...If a person really wanted a discussion of the relative
benefits of Mets calculations and interpretation , over VO2 max, do you really think this is where
they would be looking for it?
> >
> > >
> > > > his "strength to weight" ratio is not as good as the 140 pound road racer's. The 225 pound
> > > > guy will be
"smoked",
> > bad.
> > > > Put them both on a flat road, and if the sprinter is also a good
time
> > > > trialler, which is very possible, the 140 pound hill climber can be
> > smoked.
> > >
> > > Yikes! Please tell me that you don't have a background in coaching or athletic
> > > performance/physiology. If the 225 lbs. rider has the anaerobic capacity of a "sprinter" and
> > > has the aerobic capacity to time trial, why would he lose in a hill climb?
I do lots of sports, and "sit on the shoulders of many giants"
( I have some long term friends
who are at the tops of many fields, and my desire to compete more enjoyably, has led me to a
reasonably good understanding of many issues in sports ( and diving) related physiology. I try not
to sound like an authority--I am not one, but there are plenty of instances where what I call common
sense, is all that a person needs for advice. If someone here posts for very specific training
advice, I would point them to someone trained and gifted in this type of assistance. If they have a
very general question, as the OP did, it is clear they don't want to pay $100 or $500 an hour to get
an answer
And I really am sick of hearing little guys who weigh 140 pounds tell big riders, that all they
need is a hard tail, even for riding heavily rooted trails. I see this in the bike shops here is
S Florida all the time. That is what my response to the OP was really about. How about wading
into that one
> >
> > It sounds like you want desperately to be taken seriously as some kind
of
> > authority --
>
> Nope ... I'm not trying to be taken seriously. I was just taking another Usenet A hole to task for
> spreading ambiguous half truths.
>
Careful, lie down with the dogs and you'll get fleas....and something tells me you're already
scratching
>
> > maybe if you get out on a bike with enough real racers, you'll
>
> Spoken like a true cat 4.
Evil, vicious and totally uncalled for ;-)
>
> I started road racing in 1977. Started racing at Hellyer in 1979. By 1980, I was a junior 2. In
> 1988 I was racing as an E/E and coaching in California. I was with AVCT (see: Hearts of Lions)
> Bridgestone until 1991 when I retired from fulltime racing and went in for a little government
> time. Picked coaching back up in 1994 and have been doing it ever since (along side some
> government work).
Nice background. If you were'nt using the hotmail address, I might have given you the benefit of the
doubt on your first post, but as you should know, there is an awful lot of masquerading going on
under the anonymity of hotmail faking.
> > > >
> > > Go see a doctor before you start your new exercise program.
> > >
> > > Test ride as many different bikes in your price range as you can, and go with the one that
> > > feels the best to you.
> > >
> >
>
> The first thing a new rider should do, if they are looking to race or improve their fitness level,
> is go talk to a doctor. Get a 12-lead if it is available. Do a VC and a MBC if they can. There is
> plenty of time to worry about single pivot vs Four-bar or who makes the best Chamois Fat.
>
> R
Well...this NG "is" really more about arguing the merits of single pivot versus 4 bar---but its also
about arguing anything, so if you don't get too over-technical, you can probably create plenty of
arguments here
Dan V
