Beware of PowerCranks

[Doug Taylor]

On 10 Jun 2007 03:50:59 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> This sounds counterintuitive. The intuitive - and maybe credulous -
>> assumption would be that the so trained legs and hips will enable
>> the cyclist to move the pedals faster.
>
>For a physically fit person, power is not equivalent to strength, just
>as torque is not power. You say develop muscles and then talk of
>speed. Muscle is strength, speed is power.
>
>Power is aerobic capacity, no muscle mass.

Well, that also sounds counterintuitive. The intuitive assumption
would be that speed on a bicycle is a function of a combination of
BOTH aerobic capacity and strength - in varying combinations depending
upon whether the task is climbing, sprinting, timetrialing, etc.

A quick google search reveals the following:

http://www.llnl.gov/LLESA-groups/cycletrons/strength.shtml

"There are at least three good research papers saying, in
effect, that endurance athletes who do strength training increase
their time to exhaustion in cycling and on treadmill runs--with no
change in their VO2 max," says Steven Fleck, Ph.D., sports
physiologist in the division of sports science of the U.S. Olympic
Committee in Colorado Springs.

Put simply, Fleck is suggesting that strength training and endurance
training are not mutually exclusive. One helps the other.

Aerobic capacity, or VO2 max, is defined as the largest amount of
oxygen one can use in the most strenuous exercise. The higher the VO2
max, which is generally considered most representative of
cardiorespiratory fitness, the fitter the person. Now, Fleck is
reporting the athletes studied did not alter their endurance training,
and their VO2 max values stayed the same. Yet they were able to ride
their bikes longer until exhaustion-- 33 percent longer in the study
summarized below--because of strength training, which led to more leg
strength and an increase in lactate threshold values, as explained
farther on.

But see:

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/strength-training-and-leg-exercises-for-cyclists

Strength training may improve cycling performance through
increased leg power, a greater ability to cope with local fatigue and
improved upper body stability. However, this has yet to be proved in
research. In beginners and club level cyclists, more cycling is
probably the best way to improve performance. Taking time out from
cycling to do strength training will probably lead to a decline in
cycling efficiency and skill level. The exceptions are abdominal and
lower back exercises that can help prevent lower back pain.

Once skill and aerobic fitness levels have improved through normal
cycling training, performance can be improved through introducing high
intensity training even during the competitive season. This is a very
specific way of inducing load onto the legs that forces local
adaptations to take place. Just doing ever-larger volumes of cycling
may well lead to overtraining.

For elite level cyclists, introducing explosive strength and body
weight exercises is likely to improve sprint and short hill climbing
performance. Traditional strength exercises, however, may be
detrimental in that they increase muscle mass and size, adding to the
air and gravitational resistances that cyclists need to overcome.
The important thing to remember is that new stimuli force the body to
adapt and improvements in performance are made. New training methods
should not be used in addition to existing training. Instead, try to
keep one or two sessions a week aside for variety. These may include
strength training, HIT or core work.

And then there is the osteoporosis thing:

http://www.beezodogsplace.com/Pages/Articles/Osteoporosis-Cycling/Osteoporosis-Cycling.html

A recreational cyclist who rarely does other sports has the
bone density of a nonathletic couch potato and is most likely headed
for moderate to severe osteoporosis [/quote

 

[[email protected]]

Doug Taylor writes:

>>> This sounds counterintuitive. The intuitive - and maybe credulous
>>> - assumption would be that the so trained legs and hips will
>>> enable the cyclist to move the pedals faster.

>> For a physically fit person, power is not equivalent to strength,
>> just as torque is not power. You say develop muscles and then talk
>> of speed. Muscle is strength, speed is power.

>> Power is aerobic capacity, not muscle mass.

> Well, that also sounds counterintuitive. The intuitive assumption
> would be that speed on a bicycle is a function of a combination of
> BOTH aerobic capacity and strength - in varying combinations
> depending upon whether the task is climbing, sprinting,
> timetrialing, etc.

> A quick Google search reveals the following:

http://www.llnl.gov/LLESA-groups/cycletrons/strength.shtml

>

"There are at least three good research papers saying, in
> effect, that endurance athletes who do strength training increase
> their time to exhaustion in cycling and on treadmill runs--with no
> change in their VO2 max," says Steven Fleck, Ph.D., sports
> physiologist in the division of sports science of the U.S. Olympic
> Committee in Colorado Springs.

How many "good papers" are there that propose other results, for
instance, training on bicycles climbing long grades? That is a form
of strength training I expect of a fit bicyclist. I don't know the
content of the papers cited but I suspect the comparison was with
classic American focus on treadmill type Exercycle training and weight
training. I don't trust these ad hoc bicycle training regimens for
Olympics or other political arenas.

> Put simply, Fleck is suggesting that strength training and endurance
> training are not mutually exclusive. One helps the other.

I don't know what "the other" is in this context. Recall the million
dollar bicycle designed for the earlier Olympics. It could not be
used because the UCI "rule of unfair advantage" could be invoked
against it. The hubris of US involvement with the rest of the world
is huge.

> Aerobic capacity, or VO2 max, is defined as the largest amount of
> oxygen one can use in the most strenuous exercise. The higher the
> VO2 max, which is generally considered most representative of
> cardiorespiratory fitness, the fitter the person. Now, Fleck is
> reporting the athletes studied did not alter their endurance
> training, and their VO2 max values stayed the same. Yet they were
> able to ride their bikes longer until exhaustion-- 33 percent longer
> in the study summarized below--because of strength training, which
> led to more leg strength and an increase in lactate threshold
> values, as explained farther on.

I still do not know what the training regimen was that weight lifting
could augment in bicycling. That track riders benefit from it has
been known but what does it do for the truly challenging long climbs.
In the past muscle bulk has been a deficit for such effort.

> But see:

>
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/strength-training-and-leg-exercises-for-cyclists

>

Strength training may improve cycling performance through
> increased leg power, a greater ability to cope with local fatigue
> and improved upper body stability. However, this has yet to be
> proved in research. In beginners and club level cyclists, more
> cycling is probably the best way to improve performance. Taking
> time out from cycling to do strength training will probably lead to
> a decline in cycling efficiency and skill level. The exceptions are
> abdominal and lower back exercises that can help prevent lower back
> pain.

> Once skill and aerobic fitness levels have improved through normal
> cycling training, performance can be improved through introducing
> high intensity training even during the competitive season. This is
> a very specific way of inducing load onto the legs that forces local
> adaptations to take place. Just doing ever-larger volumes of
> cycling may well lead to overtraining.

> For elite level cyclists, introducing explosive strength and body
> weight exercises is likely to improve sprint and short hill climbing
> performance. Traditional strength exercises, however, may be
> detrimental in that they increase muscle mass and size, adding to
> the air and gravitational resistances that cyclists need to
> overcome. The important thing to remember is that new stimuli force
> the body to adapt and improvements in performance are made. New
> training methods should not be used in addition to existing
> training. Instead, try to keep one or two sessions a week aside for
> variety. These may include strength training, HIT or core work.
>

It looks all too familiar and vague. Looking at the best distance
athletes in various fields, muscle development does not seem to be a
leader especially int bicycling in the mountains.

> And then there is the osteoporosis thing:

http://www.beezodogsplace.com/Pages/Articles/Osteoporosis-Cycling/Osteoporosis-Cycling.html

>

A recreational cyclist who rarely does other sports has the
> bone density of a nonathletic couch potato and is most likely headed
> for moderate to severe osteoporosis [/quote

Oh cut it out. Now I have to quit bicycling because my bones are
failing me.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Doug Taylor]

On 10 Jun 2007 18:10:54 GMT, [email protected] wrote:


>> And then there is the osteoporosis thing:
>
> http://www.beezodogsplace.com/Pages/Articles/Osteoporosis-Cycling/Osteoporosis-Cycling.html
>
>>

A recreational cyclist who rarely does other sports has the
>> bone density of a nonathletic couch potato and is most likely headed
>> for moderate to severe osteoporosis [/quote

>
>Oh cut it out. Now I have to quit bicycling because my bones are
>failing me.

Quit cycling? The article suggested nothing of the sort. Did you
read it? The article simply suggested that athletes whose only
activity is cycling likely risk loss of bone density, and some weight
bearing cross training is a good idea . Which is also intuitive and
followed, I would guess, by a significant number of riders who ski,
lift weights, speed skate, etc. in the off season.

All riding and no cross-training makes Jobst a dull engineer.

 

[Bill]

Doug Taylor wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2007 18:10:54 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>> And then there is the osteoporosis thing:
>> http://www.beezodogsplace.com/Pages/Articles/Osteoporosis-Cycling/Osteoporosis-Cycling.html
>>
>>>

A recreational cyclist who rarely does other sports has the
>>> bone density of a nonathletic couch potato and is most likely headed
>>> for moderate to severe osteoporosis [/quote

>> Oh cut it out. Now I have to quit bicycling because my bones are
>> failing me.

>
> Quit cycling? The article suggested nothing of the sort. Did you
> read it? The article simply suggested that athletes whose only
> activity is cycling likely risk loss of bone density, and some weight
> bearing cross training is a good idea . Which is also intuitive and
> followed, I would guess, by a significant number of riders who ski,
> lift weights, speed skate, etc. in the off season.
>
> All riding and no cross-training makes Jobst a dull engineer.

This is usually a non-issue for men who don't give up their bone mass to
developing babies during pregnancy. Bicyclists should have no more
problem than any other man who lives past 60 (like me next year). I did
some heavy lifting twice in the last 2 weeks and surprise..didn't break
anything. Jobst needs to find a friend to help with yard work and
shuffling car engines and trannies. I get enough workout just by having
car collector friends, and my own old hot rod Chrysler.
I just don't think it is an issue for most men.
BTW, I am addicted to Tums, pure Calcium Carbonate, and love to down a
can of Sardines whenever possible, along with lots of milk.
A purely lifelong vegetarian rider might have problems, but I don't know
any fanatical types like that.

Engineer your way out of that, Jobst. Jesting of course.

They just opened a gym here called the fight club, which may suit my
type 'A' personality if I join. Kick boxing is cross training, right?

Bill Baka

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Quit cycling? The article suggested nothing of the sort. Did you
> read it?

Here's a clue Doug, you will NEVER in a hundred years achieve what Jobst
Brandt has in cycling. Not too many people here are going to say that they
stood on the roof of a building as a stage with the winner of a stage of the
Tour de France.

I wonder if there's a mountain pass in the Alps or the Dolomites that Jobst
hasn't climbed. Last time I saw him riding he was still carrying gear ratios
from the late 1960's and could still outdistance everyone that wasn't an
active pro racer.

You can anxiously read those articles which are mostly written by students
and believe that they'll improve your cycling but I guarantee that they
won't improve the cycling of most people.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:wk%[email protected]...
>
> They just opened a gym here called the fight club, which may suit my type
> 'A' personality if I join. Kick boxing is cross training, right?

Only as long as you keep it in the gym. Try kicking in a real fight and
you'll discover that hands are MUCH quicker.

 

[ST]

On 6/9/07 4:07 PM, in article [email protected],
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:

>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Phil Holman writes:
>>
>>>>>> The idea behind these mechanisms is that there is lost power
>>>>>> lurking somewhere in the machinery, when in fact it is ignorance
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the process by the inventor that lurks in the mechanism. The idea
>>>>>> of foot on pedal is that it is a circular constant speed motion
>>>>>> while the knee moved up and down, the lower leg being the
>>>>>> connecting rod and shipper leg the power generator.
>>
>>>>>> Accelerating the foot, twice (or more) per revolution is work.
>>>>>> F=Ma.
>>
>>>>> What is easier; keeping force constant, or speed?
>>
>>>> You'll need to offer more than a quip to support your perception of
>>>> pedaling. I'll try to guess where you are hinting with this as
>>>> follows:
>>
>>>> First, force cannot be kept constant. Of course you didn't say what
>>>> force, but I assume you mean torque throughout the pedal cycle. I
>>>> think you too are thinking of a human as a machine rather than a
>>>> body
>>>> of muscles and bones fed by an aerobic carburetor. Work is work and
>>>> trying to get more of it out of the same source is like seeking the
>>>> perpetual motion machine.
>>
>>>> Let me propose once more the intermittent pedaling exercise. Count
>>>> 1-2-3-1-2-3...cadence with the downward stroke of each pedal while
>>>> riding at speed on a level road. Then switch to pedaling forcefully
>>>> only on the count of "1" and notice that neither effort nor speed
>>>> changes. The only thing that changes is that it is tedious to
>>>> keeping
>>>> track do so. There is no power hidden in the strokes even if you
>>>> reduce them by 3.
>>
>>> How about reducing by a factor of 5 or maybe 7. If we follow your
>>> logic, we should manage to maintain the same speed. I don't think
>>> so. hypothesize there is a relationship between frequency of input
>>> and the ability to maintain speed. You say the body is not a
>>> machine. Why do you propose it should act like one?
>>
>> Oh, I see. Take it to the limit to prove a point. So why not stop
>> pedaling altogether? I see you haven't tried this or you wouldn't be
>> so smug about it.
>
> The reason I say this is because I have tried it and while it is
> possible to maintain a lower speed, it certainly doesn't work at maximum
> sustainable speed.
>
> Besides, it isn't "logic", it's a practical test
>> that requires no special equipment nor a special outing to a test
>> site... that is, if you ride bike and can count.
>
> .........and chew gum.
>
>
> Phil H
>
>

WILL YOU TWO GO GET A ROOM ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bill]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:wk%[email protected]...
>> They just opened a gym here called the fight club, which may suit my type
>> 'A' personality if I join. Kick boxing is cross training, right?
>
> Only as long as you keep it in the gym. Try kicking in a real fight and
> you'll discover that hands are MUCH quicker.
>
>
Tom,
I know that, since I am in the habit of grabbing flies in mid air and
nailing mosquitoes with one hand. Just being older does not mean slower.
I trained my daughter some kick boxing and she took it as a real deal at
a gym a few years back. Her feet may not be as quick as her hands but
she is really big boned and taller than me, so I don't have to worry
about her when she goes out. Bare hands I don't even use fists but
rather a combination of open hand and elbows to supplement my feet.
In a real fight if I thought I might lose I would only use the feet to
kick somebodies knee backward and disable him. There is the chest kick
option but I can hit with almost as much force with an open hand. I've
been in a few real fights and haven't lost yet. I try to minimize that
though since some of the scum bags are packing guns. Joining that club
would put me in the ring with someone about 30 years younger than me,
and that suits me fine. In a monitored fight I would have less danger of
or motivation to hurt someone to the point of a hospital trip.
I would rate it as interactive exercise.
Bill Baka

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:19:27 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

>Here's a clue Doug, you will NEVER in a hundred years achieve what Jobst
>Brandt has in cycling.

No ****, Sherlock.

My question to Jobst was: how does the revered Stanford prof. cycling
engineer guru, when referred to an article about possible bone loss in
cyclists which recommends weight bearing training, leap to the
conclusion that he must quit cycling?

That is either hyperbole or lack of reading comprehension; in either
case unworthy of the man.

>You can anxiously read those articles which are mostly written by students
>and believe that they'll improve your cycling but I guarantee that they
>won't improve the cycling of most people.

Well, Sherlock, that may certainly be a fact. But if there ARE actual
studies written by I don't care whom that strength training is 100%
irrelevant to cycling efficiency, then wouldn't it make sense to cite
the friggin' article for all to read instead of attacking the authors
of the posted articles suggesting otherwise?

Let's cite the logical fallacies involved here:

Jobst is the guru of bicycle mechanics and engineering and therefore
always correct on: 1) any subject concerning bicycles or bicycling; or
2) any subject:

Appeal to Authority
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

The authors of the articles suggesting strength training increases
cycling efficiency are merely "students" and therefore they are
incorrect.

Ad Hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Tom Kunick "guarantees" that strength training won't improve the
cycling of most people.

Thud.

 

[Bill C]

On Jun 11, 8:56 am, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:19:27 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
> >Here's a clue Doug, you will NEVER in a hundred years achieve what Jobst
> >Brandt has in cycling.
>
> No ****, Sherlock.
>
> My question to Jobst was: how does the revered Stanford prof. cycling
> engineer guru, when referred to an article about possible bone loss in
> cyclists which recommends weight bearing training, leap to the
> conclusion that he must quit cycling?
>
> That is either hyperbole or lack of reading comprehension; in either
> case unworthy of the man.
>
> >You can anxiously read those articles which are mostly written by students
> >and believe that they'll improve your cycling but I guarantee that they
> >won't improve the cycling of most people.
>
> Well, Sherlock, that may certainly be a fact. But if there ARE actual
> studies written by I don't care whom that strength training is 100%
> irrelevant to cycling efficiency, then wouldn't it make sense to cite
> the friggin' article for all to read instead of attacking the authors
> of the posted articles suggesting otherwise?
>
> Let's cite the logical fallacies involved here:
>
> Jobst is the guru of bicycle mechanics and engineering and therefore
> always correct on: 1) any subject concerning bicycles or bicycling; or
> 2) any subject:
>
> Appeal to Authorityhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
>
> The authors of the articles suggesting strength training increases
> cycling efficiency are merely "students" and therefore they are
> incorrect.
>
> Ad Hominemhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
>
> Tom Kunick "guarantees" that strength training won't improve the
> cycling of most people.
>
> Thud.

Interval, low cadence, and sprint training are strength training.
Anything anaerobic is strength training. It's idiotic to suggest that
it doesn't help. It's also idiotic to suggest that core strength
training doesn't help. This is like those morons who insisted that
"strength training" would harm baseball players and reduce
performance.
Bill C

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:19:27 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>Here's a clue Doug, you will NEVER in a hundred years achieve what Jobst
>>Brandt has in cycling.
>
> No ****, Sherlock.
>
> My question to Jobst was: how does the revered Stanford prof. cycling
> engineer guru, when referred to an article about possible bone loss in
> cyclists which recommends weight bearing training, leap to the
> conclusion that he must quit cycling?

Looked to me like he leaped to the conclusion that you believed that the
loss of calcium content in male skeletal structures was something to be
concerned about. While it may be true, the extent is actually so small as to
only be important to a very small percentage of bone density impaired men.

> That is either hyperbole or lack of reading comprehension; in either
> case unworthy of the man.

Seemed to me that he was just calling 'em the way he saw 'em.

>>You can anxiously read those articles which are mostly written by students
>>and believe that they'll improve your cycling but I guarantee that they
>>won't improve the cycling of most people.
>
> Well, Sherlock, that may certainly be a fact. But if there ARE actual
> studies written by I don't care whom that strength training is 100%
> irrelevant to cycling efficiency, then wouldn't it make sense to cite
> the friggin' article for all to read instead of attacking the authors
> of the posted articles suggesting otherwise?
>
> Let's cite the logical fallacies involved here:
>
> Jobst is the guru of bicycle mechanics and engineering and therefore
> always correct on: 1) any subject concerning bicycles or bicycling; or
> 2) any subject:

Jobst has very seldom commented on anything but basic facts supportable by
scientific proof. So it's in fact easy to say that he almost never makes a
mistake because he is almost always speaking about things that are
mathematically provable and from his educational background as a highly
competent mechanical engineer who has worked for some of the most demanding
companies in the world.

And let's note that he has often attacked me so there's no love lost between
us. But I have no problem when he is writing of things he knows. You do seem
to have such a problem.

Unless you have an unusually weak musclature, you cannot improve your
strength by weight training enough to make anywhere as much difference as
riding your bike. That's why more and more training regimes are dropping
weight training and "cross training" programs for professional cyclists save
to prevent training boredom.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> Jobst has very seldom commented on anything but basic facts supportable by
> scientific proof. So it's in fact easy to say that he almost never makes a
> mistake because he is almost always speaking about things that are
> mathematically provable and from his educational background as a highly
> competent mechanical engineer who has worked for some of the most demanding
> companies in the world.

Who are you and what have you done with Tom Kunich?

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> Jobst has very seldom commented on anything but basic facts supportable
>> by
>> scientific proof. So it's in fact easy to say that he almost never makes
>> a
>> mistake because he is almost always speaking about things that are
>> mathematically provable and from his educational background as a highly
>> competent mechanical engineer who has worked for some of the most
>> demanding
>> companies in the world.
>
> Who are you and what have you done with Tom Kunich?

Thhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhpppppppppppppptttttttttttttt!!!

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jobst has very seldom commented on anything but basic facts
> >> supportable by scientific proof. So it's in fact easy to say that
> >> he almost never makes a mistake because he is almost always
> >> speaking about things that are mathematically provable and from
> >> his educational background as a highly competent mechanical
> >> engineer who has worked for some of the most demanding companies
> >> in the world.
> >
> > Who are you and what have you done with Tom Kunich?
>
> Thhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhpppppppppppppptttttttttttttt!!!

OK, that's better. ;-)

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:08:52 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:
>
>> My question to Jobst was: how does the revered Stanford prof. cycling
>> engineer guru, when referred to an article about possible bone loss in
>> cyclists which recommends weight bearing training, leap to the
>> conclusion that he must quit cycling?
>
>Looked to me like he leaped to the conclusion that you believed that the
>loss of calcium content in male skeletal structures was something to be
>concerned about. While it may be true, the extent is actually so small as to
>only be important to a very small percentage of bone density impaired men.
>
>> That is either hyperbole or lack of reading comprehension; in either
>> case unworthy of the man.
>
>Seemed to me that he was just calling 'em the way he saw 'em.

Maybe you ought to let the Man answer for himself. Nobody with a
brain - certainly not somebody with Jobst Brandt's brain - could read
that particular article and seriously conclude that one must QUIT
cycling or suffer bone loss. The article doesn't say that; I don't
say that. I DO, however, find the study of interest, and it does make
me feel better about cross training (which I would do anyway for the
variety. In the northeast, we have these things called "seasons",
which, of course, are mysterious to citizens of Palo Alto, CA).

>> Let's cite the logical fallacies involved here:
>>
>> Jobst is the guru of bicycle mechanics and engineering and therefore
>> always correct on: 1) any subject concerning bicycles or bicycling; or
>> 2) any subject:
>
>Jobst has very seldom commented on anything but basic facts supportable by
>scientific proof. So it's in fact easy to say that he almost never makes a
>mistake because he is almost always speaking about things that are
>mathematically provable and from his educational background as a highly
>competent mechanical engineer who has worked for some of the most demanding
>companies in the world.

Ergo: he is ALWAYS correct? Tom, go back to school.
>
>And let's note that he has often attacked me so there's no love lost between
>us. But I have no problem when he is writing of things he knows. You do seem
>to have such a problem.

I have a problem with the logic and procedure - whether coming from a
renowned authority, like Jobst, or by just another usenet hack, like
you or me - of dismissing research which reaches conclusion A by
attacking the author and not the research, and then asserting the
truth of conclusion B, without citing evidence for the conclusion.

Conclusion B might actually be true and correct. I am certain that
the people who read these cross posted messages have a real interest
in maximizing their performance and efficiency on bicycles, and would
love to know, in fact, whether simply putting in more miles is
superior to wasting money and time on gym memberships and $1000
Powercranks.

Jobst Brandt - credentials or not - simply proclaiming it does not
convince. A fortiori, Tom Kunich "guaranteeing" it is worth caca.

Where, as the saying goes, is the beef?

>Unless you have an unusually weak musclature, you cannot improve your
>strength by weight training enough to make anywhere as much difference as
>riding your bike. That's why more and more training regimes are dropping
>weight training and "cross training" programs for professional cyclists save
>to prevent training boredom.

Again, your evidence for this assertion is? If true, please cite
authority. If being pulled out of your ass, please give us a break.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:08:52 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> My question to Jobst was: how does the revered Stanford prof.
> >> cycling engineer guru, when referred to an article about possible
> >> bone loss in cyclists which recommends weight bearing training,
> >> leap to the conclusion that he must quit cycling?
> >
> >Looked to me like he leaped to the conclusion that you believed that
> >the loss of calcium content in male skeletal structures was
> >something to be concerned about. While it may be true, the extent is
> >actually so small as to only be important to a very small percentage
> >of bone density impaired men.
> >
> >> That is either hyperbole or lack of reading comprehension; in
> >> either case unworthy of the man.
> >
> >Seemed to me that he was just calling 'em the way he saw 'em.
>
> Maybe you ought to let the Man answer for himself. Nobody with a
> brain - certainly not somebody with Jobst Brandt's brain - could
> read that particular article and seriously conclude that one must
> QUIT cycling or suffer bone loss. The article doesn't say that; I
> don't say that. I DO, however, find the study of interest, and it
> does make me feel better about cross training (which I would do
> anyway for the variety. In the northeast, we have these things
> called "seasons", which, of course, are mysterious to citizens of
> Palo Alto, CA).

Jeez Louise. It was an obvious bit of sarcastic humor! Are you all
humor deficient?

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:17:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Jeez Louise. It was an obvious bit of sarcastic humor! Are you all
>humor deficient?

No, Tim. If it was funny, I would have laughed. Apparently Kunick
didn't "get it" either.

To me it was actually smug and condescending hyperbole, and didn't
contribute to the subject under discussion - strength training and
cross training.

Don't we have some reasonable expectation that people who come to
usenet of the stature of a Jobst Brandt ought to play along and
actually give evidence for their claims that: a) strength training is
irrelevant to bicycle efficiency and b) there is zero risk of bone
loss for avid cyclists?

They may be true, and if so, I would love to know the facts, cancel my
expensive gym membership, and put my Powercranks up for sale on e-bay.

Or, do I really just have to take it on faith like Tom Kunick: Jobst
said it; ergo it is correct. While the rest of us mere mortals have
license to be idiots and pull our opinions out of our ass.

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
....
> Don't we have some reasonable expectation that people who come to
> usenet of the stature of a Jobst Brandt ought to play along and
> actually give evidence for their claims that: a) strength training is
> irrelevant to bicycle efficiency and b) there is zero risk of bone
> loss for avid cyclists?
>
> They may be true, and if so, I would love to know the facts, cancel my
> expensive gym membership, and put my Powercranks up for sale on e-bay.
>
....
No, I don't think you have a right to that as a reasonable expectation. That
is no more than the flip side of demanding the right to dictate how someone
else chooses to post. We won't even go into the unreasonableness of trying
to have reasonable expectations on a newsgroup. That's like having
reasonable expectations dating a girl that dies her hair purple - purple
sheep for those from New Zealand.

Not that I'm trying to offend anyone from New Zealand or those from
Australia that go to New Zealand for their weekends...

Besides, as to your b), when was that claim made? Zero risk?


--
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:17:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Jeez Louise. It was an obvious bit of sarcastic humor! Are you all
> >humor deficient?
>
> No, Tim. If it was funny, I would have laughed. Apparently Kunick
> didn't "get it" either.
>
> To me it was actually smug and condescending hyperbole, and didn't
> contribute to the subject under discussion - strength training and
> cross training.

We are laughing at you, not with you.
Get it now?

> Don't we have some reasonable expectation that people who come to
> usenet of the stature of a Jobst Brandt ought to play along and
> actually give evidence for their claims that: a) strength training is
> irrelevant to bicycle efficiency and b) there is zero risk of bone
> loss for avid cyclists?
> They may be true, and if so, I would love to know the facts, cancel my
> expensive gym membership, and put my Powercranks up for sale on e-bay.
>
> Or, do I really just have to take it on faith like Tom Kunick: Jobst
> said it; ergo it is correct. While the rest of us mere mortals have
> license to be idiots and pull our opinions out of our ass.

Looks like Jobst has another stocker.

--
Michael Press

 

[Donald Munro]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> OK, sure, but back to Don Giovanni. Maybe it is just operatic irony that he
> gets pulled down to hell for maybe the one thing he really isn't guilty.

Even a guilty man can be framed.

> I can't grok irony in Italian very well.

Chinese irony is even more ungrokkable.