On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:41:06 GMT, Thad O >But before I go
on, there were a few answers which were... well
>stupid. I'm tired of the people who post things which
>are wrong ( in this case some were plain dangerous ). I
>guess some
No offense but, this is usenet, and such is it's nature. The
skill required to usenet has nothing to do with how to use a
browser or newsreader, but rather how to seperate the wheat
from the chaff.
Also, I'm not defending anyone's point of view but even the
most highly regarded experts in the field of exercise (and
nutrition... all sciences really) often disagree wildly with
one another's 'stupid claims'.
Bottom line - usenet can provide you with 'food for though',
the opinons and thoghts for others, and point you in the
right direction to look, or point out something you might
have overlooked, but you still need to do some research and
make up your own mind.
>guys have to make up for other... shortcomings, by pulling
>a Cliff Claven act. So, before I get to my question I am
>going to call those people on their stupidity. For those
>who want to skip ahead, I will be marking the end of this
>part by <===========>.
>
>Of the stupid claims, probably the most stupid claim is
>that climbing stairs is the same exercise as using a
>stairmaster. Aside from the fact that stairclimbing alone
>is not going to promote *all around* fitness ( thus not
>answering my question, just some garbage someone spews to
>show how *smart* they are ), stairs are not the same as a (
>high quality ) stairmaster. Any orthopedist will tell you
>that stairs produce much more wear and tear on the knees.
>Given that bicycling can also create lots of wear and tear
>on the knees ( mostly for people whose knees are already in
>bad shape ), this advice was especially stupid. Hopefully
>people googling the original post will realize just how
>stupid these poster are, before they blow out their knees.
>
>The other stupid claim contends that upper body
>conditioning is not useful in bicycling. Two arguments were
>used to explain my upper body fatigue (when riding):
>gripping the handlebars too tightly and a poor bicycle fit.
>Both stupid for simple reasons.
>
>Frankly I know that the fit if my bike is not as good as it
>could be, because my body is misproportioned. But it is as
>good as it is going to get ( mainly because I don't have
>the time to get a custom fit ). I bought it from Turin
>Cycling, one of the premier bicycling shops in the
>Chicagoland area. They know how to fit a bike. I've been
>riding for 30 years. I know how to fit a bike. Just before
>I bought the bike I reviewed books and articles on fitting
>bikes to make sure that I remembered things right.
Even many cycling experts disagree on how to 'properly'
fit a bike.
>As for gripping handlebars too tightly; I've been cycling
>for thirty years. I know how to grip a bike. Not only do I
>have all my experience ( once again 30 years ), but in that
>time I did a lot of reading, talking to other cyclists, etc
>to improve my form. From the way I have ridden in the past,
>it seemed like I pretty much had it down, being able to
>outride ( both in speed and distance ) most of my friends.
Though remember, you're 30 years older now than when you
started. Your body is very different now... especially the
amount of muscle mass you have.
>Fact is that bicycling requires but does not create upper
>body strength. I checked out several books and they all
>agree on this point. These books range from publications by
That simply doesn't make sense. Anything that 'requires'
strength would therefore create strength through repeated
use. That's how the body works.
>"Bicycling" to Eugene Sloane's "Complete Book of
>Bicycling". The books are quite specific, the lion's share
>of your weight is carried by your arms. Can't remember the
>number that they gave as a percentage, but I would say that
>at least 60% of your weight is on your arms. ( For those
>who don't know, but are curious, that's because the more
>weight on your butt the more impediment there is to smooth
>pedalling. I know not a lot, but how much do you gain by
>shaving your legs? )
>
>In the end, I believe that the idiots that put this
>forward, are just plain lazy and don't want to do any upper
>body conditioning. So instead they make excuses about why
>it's not necessary. Even to those who are willing to do it.
>
><===========>
>
>My question(s):
>
>I used to go to a gym, but it turned out that I spent more
>time driving to and fro then I did in the gym. Checking
>the situation out, there are no gyms which are
>conveniently located. I live in a group environment, so
>noisy equipment is out, and since I have very very little
>room ( not enough free room to do an exercise video ) a
>lot of equipment is out.
>
>On top of that, the last few years have been rough
>healthwise so I need to basically start from the bottom. In
>particular, I want to build up to the point where I can do
>much more serious cycling again. Like going out and doing a
>century ( which means 100 miles in one day/trip ).
>
>Another thing that I am looking for is balance (and
>comprehensiveness). In the past I've eschewed balance and
>it cost me. Ignore the Achilles's tendon and cause calf
>problems. Ignore the ILTB ( though I really don't know how
>to not ignore
>it ) and wind up with knee problems. So I'm looking for a
> workout that will develop me in a balanced way.
Cycling is a great exercise.
>
>To quote one book: "Fitness is many things to many
>people. To us you are as fit as the weakest link in your
>fitness chain."
>
>I gotten to the point where you have a rough idea of what I
>want. Let me now state the main question that I am asking.
>
>*** Can people recommend books/web sites/anything else that
>will help me design an exercise plan that meets the above
>criteria, plus a few other things below. ***
The cost of a consultation with a personal trainer (or two)
would probably be well worth it.
>The things I expect such a plan to do is to enable me to
>build up suppleness/flexibility, strength and endurance.
What you're looking for is 'cross-training'... you might
want to consider:
1) conventional cycling
2) stationary cycling
3) swimming
4) walking
5) strength training with machines (total gym)
6) strength training with free weights (powerbloks)
7) body weight exercises
8) martial arts
Putting it all together? That's your job. With the help of a
personal trainer. Google 'cross-training for cycling', Jack
Lalanne, and *cyclo-cross* training for a start.
http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1996/09_96/cross.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
/0880114932/104-2839940-4767957?v=glanceamazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764552376/qid=1087845776/sr=ka-
2/ref=pd_ka_2/104-2839940-4767957
>
>It should allow me to miss a few days.( As few as possible,
>but when you get older, there are these things called
>jobs...) It should also allow substitutions of exercises, (
>So if I can't do exercise 1 to work on a bicep because of
>injury, I do exercise 29 instead. ) and create rotations (
>where some muscles are given a rest on some days ) so that
>I don't overexercise.
I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to
be. You should work all of your muscles. If one is sore,
rest it until it's better. Read up on 'superslow' for this,
especially if you are injury prone (google Fred Hahn, The
Power of 10, and Ken Hutchinson). Also, speak with Steve
Friedies <sp> about kettle-bell-type workouts. Check out
misc.fitness.weights.