diet advice on knee ligament injury



zander

New Member
Nov 7, 2007
27
0
0
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.
 
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!
 
A change in your diet will not fix that problem.
aw ****, 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!
 
zander said:
aw ****, 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!
 
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?
 
zander said:
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:

Sure, you can drive a car with your feet if you want to, but that doesnt really make it a good idea!
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
zander said:
i get over 110 RPM's constant with a 53, without exhaustion
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.
 
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.
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.
 
j.r.hawkins said:
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.

Can I get an AMEN brotha!!!
 
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.
ok, have you read my other thread about gear ratios?, because if you did you would find that i'm changing my gears from a 57 to a 53 with a rear 11t cog as opposed to a 12t which is what i was using, it gives me a similiar gear ratio to the the 57. this is why i came here, criticising me DOESN'T WORK!, i asked on advice on optimizing my gear ratio, thats why i joined this forum.

Troll alert remains in force... :eek:
ok... why don't you go ahead and close the thread then?
 
I have to call BS on all your posts thus far.
61 chainring overview;


61 close up;


wrecked 12 cog after 1 and a half years of the 61 and 57;


just why you think i would waste this much time on a BS story is a little weird.