Gears beyond 99 or 100

[Wayne T]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > Wayne T wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> If I am having difficulty keeping up because everyone else has lighter equipment, then why
> >> shouldn't I do the same, if I can afford it? I see you failed to address this issue.
> >
> > You're falling for a middle-aged guy's fantasy. "I can beat the fast guys. I just need newer
> > toys."
>
> I think that's more commonly a young man's fantasy. Middle aged guys know better, because they
> probably went through all that nonsense when they
were
> young.

Is that my problem? When I was younger, I didn't need a lighter bike to go faster and didn't have
the money anyway. So now that I am older, I'm looking for that edge go make up for the declining
strength and endurance.

That's why they potter around on dorky bikes, wearing dorky
> clothes, looking like freds.
>
> Matt O.

 

[David Reuteler]

Wayne T <[email protected]> wrote:
: I'm slim and weigh about 6 lbs lighter than when I was in my late 20s into my 30s. At that time,
: I was able to push those high gears. I find that, in spite of the fact that I still exercise, I
: can no longer push those high gears. I've tried. I no longer have the strength and I also find
: that it is harder on my knees. When I was able to hit those higher gears, I was able to go faster
: than I do now.

performance enhancing drugs may be able to make up the difference from your lost youth.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>, Matt O'Toole
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > Wayne T wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> If I am having difficulty keeping up because everyone else has lighter equipment, then why
> >> shouldn't I do the same, if I can afford it? I see you failed to address this issue.
> >
> > You're falling for a middle-aged guy's fantasy. "I can beat the fast guys. I just need newer
> > toys."
>
> I think that's more commonly a young man's fantasy. Middle aged guys know better, because they
> probably went through all that nonsense when they were young. That's why they potter around on
> dorky bikes, wearing dorky clothes, looking like freds.

Boy, not the middle aged guys around here- nor for that matter the middle aged guys I saw in the
Alps last summer. Full team kit right down to the socks with perfectly matching team replica bikes
right down to the tires. Of course, a lot of them were faster than me up the mountains...

 

[Frank Miles]

In article <hcs8a.293867$tq4.6669@sccrnsc01>, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Theoretical support: veins depend on limb movements for blood circulation. Practical support: if
>> you stress legs heavily, then stop abruptly, you can feel like fainting etc.
>
>I don't think is true. From what I've read, muscular contractions and/or limb movement don't move
>blood significantly.

There is anatomic evidence (e.g. the valves in leg veins) and epidemiological data (e.g. vascular
problems in people that stand in place for long periods) to support this. Haven't you ever noticed
how uncomfortable it is to stand without movement, in comparison with walking?

-frank
--

 

[A Muzi]

> Wayne T wrote:
> > If I am having difficulty keeping up because everyone else has lighter equipment, then why
> > shouldn't I do the same, if I can afford it? I see
you
> > failed to address this issue.

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> You're falling for a middle-aged guy's fantasy. "I can beat the fast guys. I just need
> newer toys."
>
> I suppose there are benefits to buying new wheels, even beyond saving a few grams. You're
> supporting the bike industry. Most guys our age waste their money on red Corvettes and such, so
> you're at least doing better than that.
>
> But just as the guy in the red Corvette doesn't _really_ look cool or pick up college chicks, you
> won't _really_ be measurably faster. If that's OK with you, fine.
>
> We can beat this to death as long as you like. I think the people that currently understand it
> (and there are many) will be the only ones who'll understand it in the end.

We do enjoy the business of that sort of customer. But after a few months of frenetic "upgrades", we
lose him from the sport when he finds that new toys don't really yield "improvement" or
"performance", they just look nice.

--
Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971

 

[Peter Cole]

"Frank Miles" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <hcs8a.293867$tq4.6669@sccrnsc01>, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> Theoretical support: veins depend on limb movements for blood
circulation.
> >> Practical support: if you stress legs heavily, then stop abruptly, you can feel like
> >> fainting etc.
> >
> >I don't think is true. From what I've read, muscular contractions and/or
limb
> >movement don't move blood significantly.
>
> There is anatomic evidence (e.g. the valves in leg veins) and
epidemiological
> data (e.g. vascular problems in people that stand in place for long periods) to support this.
> Haven't you ever noticed how uncomfortable it is to stand without movement, in comparison with
> walking?

I think there's a big difference between muscular recovery in a stressful sport like cycling and
circulation problems caused by inactivity (Chronic Venous Insufficiency , etc.). The question was
whether pedaling on the backside of a hill rather than coasting improved muscular recovery. My
experience has been that it doesn't, and since even zero load pedaling has some overhead (which
becomes obvious when you ride a fixed gear bike), pedaling while coasting causes, more than
alleviates, fatigue. The comparison between standing and walking is misleading, since the thing that
causes fatigue and circulation impairment in standing is largely static contraction of muscles,
which does block flow. These flow problems increase with (vertical) distance from the heart, so are
primarily of the feet and calf, muscles that aren't as heavily involved in cycling as the muscles of
the upper leg and lower torso.

 

[Mike Latondress]

Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>
> You'd rather have American tea than American beer?
>
Sure, its stronger.

 

[Frank Miles]

In article <[email protected]>, Peter Cole
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Frank Miles" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> In article <hcs8a.293867$tq4.6669@sccrnsc01>, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >> Theoretical support: veins depend on limb movements for blood circulation. Practical support:
>> >> if you stress legs heavily, then stop abruptly, you can feel like fainting etc.
>> >
>> >I don't think is true. From what I've read, muscular contractions and/or
>limb
>> >movement don't move blood significantly.
>>
>> There is anatomic evidence (e.g. the valves in leg veins) and
>epidemiological
>> data (e.g. vascular problems in people that stand in place for long periods) to support this.
>> Haven't you ever noticed how uncomfortable it is to stand without movement, in comparison with
>> walking?
>
>I think there's a big difference between muscular recovery in a stressful sport like cycling and
>circulation problems caused by inactivity (Chronic Venous Insufficiency , etc.). The question was
>whether pedaling on the backside of a hill rather than coasting improved muscular recovery.

I agree that it's more subtle, but I think it is real in the kind of circumstances I was originally
describing -- a sizeable steep hill up, then down with little if any 'flat' on top for recovery.
Venous pressure is quite low, even with strenuous exercise -- below 10mmHg. With vena cava pressure
at 0mmHg, that's only ~13.6 cmH20 -- less than 6". Venous flow from the legs is going to be pretty
minimal without some kind boost.

If the hill is less steep (up), or has a flat section on top for recovery, or if you're more careful
to remain strictly aerobic on the way up, it won't be as important.

> My experience has been that it doesn't, and since even zero load pedaling has some overhead (which
> becomes obvious when you ride a fixed gear bike), pedaling while coasting causes, more than
> alleviates, fatigue.

Agreed that no-load pedaling has a metabolic cost. The question, I guess, is at what point does this
get overwhelmed by the needs of the muscle for CO2 removal, etc., that it would otherwise not get.

> The comparison between standing and walking is misleading, since the thing that causes fatigue
> and circulation impairment in standing is largely static contraction of muscles, which does
> block flow.

Are you sure it's simply static contraction? And that this wouldn't also occur with someone sitting
on a bike without pedaling?

>These flow problems increase with (vertical) distance from the heart, so are primarily of the feet
>and calf, muscles that aren't as heavily involved in cycling as the muscles of the upper leg and
>lower torso.

Clearly elevation has a lot to do with it -- it will be worse for gastroc than quadriceps. To me it
still seems important -- I've certainly had my share of gastroc fatigue when ramping up the amount
of cycling I'm doing.

-frank
--

 

[Peter Cole]

"Frank Miles" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> Agreed that no-load pedaling has a metabolic cost. The question, I guess, is at what point does
> this get overwhelmed by the needs of the muscle for CO2 removal, etc., that it would otherwise
> not get.

It's a good question. I've heard some claim that continuing to turn the pedals (no-load) on a
downhill is important for reducing fatigue by improving circulation, but I haven't noticed that it
helped (very subjective, I know). I have found that downhilling with a fixed gear is very tiring,
and I have even cramped up while doing the high RPM spins. I don't know where the crossover
is/might be.

 

[M Gagnon]

"Wayne T" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear? I'm trying
to
> decide which large front gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear. A 48, 46 or 44. The 44
> gives a 99 gear. The other front sprockets would
be
> 36 & 22T. The rear would be a 12-34.
>

What terrain do you ride on? How loaded are you? What is your riding style?

Even though I have long legs and 175 mm cranks, I like to spin at 75-85 rpm. When riding by myself,
I rarely use anything higher 80 gear-inches. With a 1-2% downgrade and/or a tailwind, I will use my
two higher gears: 84.5 and 99 gear-inches. And when I tow my daughter, I use lower gears than that.
I'm not exactly a fast rider, but I hold my speed for the entire day. Average cruising speed is
20-22 km/h (day-long average) when towing my daughter(s) and 22-25 km/h when I'm not.

What would I do? Probably look at a 2-step process:
- install a 48 chainring;
- eventually change the cassette for a customised 13-34 or 14-34 (look at Sheldon Brown's
Cyclotouriste).

That way, you would have gears in the 17.4 to 100 gear inches (as you plan), but with less
duplicates and closer ratios.

Regards,

Michel Gagnon

 

[Wayne T]

"M Gagnon" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Wayne T" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email protected]...
> > Is there any point having available a 103.5 or 108 top gear? I'm trying
> to
> > decide which large front gear I should get with a 12 tooth in the rear.
A
> > 48, 46 or 44. The 44 gives a 99 gear. The other front sprockets
would
> be
> > 36 & 22T. The rear would be a 12-34.
> >
>
> What terrain do you ride on? How loaded are you? What is your riding
style?
>
> Even though I have long legs and 175 mm cranks, I like to spin at 75-85
rpm.
> When riding by myself, I rarely use anything higher 80 gear-inches. With
a
> 1-2% downgrade and/or a tailwind, I will use my two higher gears: 84.5 and 99 gear-inches. And
> when I tow my daughter, I use lower gears than that.
I'm
> not exactly a fast rider, but I hold my speed for the entire day. Average cruising speed is 20-22
> km/h (day-long average) when towing my daughter(s) and 22-25 km/h when I'm not.
>
> What would I do? Probably look at a 2-step process:
> - install a 48 chainring;
> - eventually change the cassette for a customised 13-34 or 14-34 (look at Sheldon Brown's
> Cyclotouriste).
>
> That way, you would have gears in the 17.4 to 100 gear inches (as you
plan),
> but with less duplicates and closer ratios.

Thanks. I will check it out.

>
> Regards,
>
> Michel Gagnon

 

[Risto Varanka]

Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
: Venous Insufficiency , etc.). The question was whether pedaling on the backside of a hill rather
: than coasting improved muscular recovery. My experience has been that it doesn't, and since even
: zero load pedaling has some overhead (which becomes obvious when you ride a fixed gear bike),
: pedaling while coasting causes, more than alleviates, fatigue. The comparison

Aerobic load from light pedalling is minimal. Likewise energy consumption is probably not that much.
Although, would you suppose that continued exercise actually hinders recovery from the more strenous
exercise, by increasing load? Would that trail of thinking also mean there is no use in cooldown or
warmup in conjunction with the payload of the actual exercise?

: between standing and walking is misleading, since the thing that causes fatigue and circulation
: impairment in standing is largely static contraction of muscles, which does block flow. These flow
: problems increase with

One would suppose that moving your legs would increase circulation, compared to resting them in
place on the pedals. Dynamic contraction, more need because of continued exercise, etc.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/ varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Bill Patterson]

The Battle Mountain racers have a low gear af 140 inches. However, they are reaching a top sprint
speed over 70 mph. The fastest is going 81.5 mph. This is in the flat, no wind and taking no pace.
--
Bill "Pop Pop" Patterson Retired and riding my Linear, my front drive low racer and our M5 tandem.

See some Bikes At:

http://home.earthlink.net/~wm.patterson/index.html

Reply to [email protected]

 

[Peter Cole]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Venous Insufficiency , etc.). The question was whether pedaling on the backside of a hill rather
> : than coasting improved muscular recovery. My experience has been that it doesn't, and since even
> : zero load pedaling has some overhead (which becomes obvious when you ride a fixed gear bike),
> : pedaling while coasting causes, more than alleviates, fatigue. The
comparison
>
> Aerobic load from light pedalling is minimal. Likewise energy consumption is probably not
> that much.

It depends on the cadence. No-load pedaling at high cadence is quite tiring.

> Although, would you suppose that continued exercise actually hinders recovery from the more
> strenous exercise, by increasing load?

I think it does, certainly, in some circumstances.

> Would that trail of thinking also mean there is no use in cooldown or warmup in conjunction with
> the payload of the actual exercise?

I don't see the relationship between the two scenarios.

> : between standing and walking is misleading, since the thing that causes fatigue and circulation
> : impairment in standing is largely static
contraction
> : of muscles, which does block flow. These flow problems increase with
>
> One would suppose that moving your legs would increase circulation, compared to resting them in
> place on the pedals. Dynamic contraction, more need because of continued exercise, etc.

One might suppose so, but I don't know if that's true. From what I've read, static contraction does
inhibit circulation, but I'm not sure if there's an improvement in circulation with movement vs.
motionless relaxation. There is a definite cost to movement, even no-load movement. Perhaps there's
a cross over point, I don't know.

 

[Robin Hubert]

"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Vfr9a.326542$2H6.6083@sccrnsc04...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> > : Venous Insufficiency , etc.). The question was whether pedaling on the backside of a hill
> > : rather than coasting improved muscular recovery. My experience has been that it doesn't, and
> > : since even zero load pedaling
has
> > : some overhead (which becomes obvious when you ride a fixed gear bike), pedaling while coasting
> > : causes, more than alleviates, fatigue. The
> comparison
> >
> > Aerobic load from light pedalling is minimal. Likewise energy consumption is probably not
> > that much.
>
> It depends on the cadence. No-load pedaling at high cadence is quite
tiring.
>
> > Although, would you suppose that continued exercise actually hinders recovery from the more
> > strenous exercise, by increasing load?
>
> I think it does, certainly, in some circumstances.
>
> > Would that trail of thinking also mean there is no use in cooldown or warmup in conjunction with
> > the payload of the actual exercise?
>
> I don't see the relationship between the two scenarios.
>
> > : between standing and walking is misleading, since the thing that
causes
> > : fatigue and circulation impairment in standing is largely static
> contraction
> > : of muscles, which does block flow. These flow problems increase with
> >
> > One would suppose that moving your legs would increase circulation, compared to resting them in
> > place on the pedals. Dynamic contraction, more need because of continued exercise, etc.
>
> One might suppose so, but I don't know if that's true. From what I've
read,
> static contraction does inhibit circulation, but I'm not sure if there's
an
> improvement in circulation with movement vs. motionless relaxation. There
is a
> definite cost to movement, even no-load movement. Perhaps there's a cross
over
> point, I don't know.
>

All this stems from the physiologic concept of an assisted pump via a tremendous venous network in
the feet. The effect of walking thereby assists movement of venous blood. <squish>

Robin Hubert

 

[Terry Morse]

Peter Cole wrote:

> From what I've read, static contraction does inhibit circulation, but I'm not sure if there's an
> improvement in circulation with movement vs. motionless relaxation. There is a definite cost to
> movement, even no-load movement. Perhaps there's a cross over point, I don't know.

When lying in a hospital bed (something I had the misfortune of doing lately), they give you
exercises to keep the blood flowing in your legs. I assume the same circulatory benefit would apply
to cycling.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

 

[Peter Cole]

"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
> > From what I've read, static contraction does inhibit circulation, but I'm not sure if there's
an
> > improvement in circulation with movement vs. motionless relaxation. There
is a
> > definite cost to movement, even no-load movement. Perhaps there's a cross
over
> > point, I don't know.
>
> When lying in a hospital bed (something I had the misfortune of doing lately), they give you
> exercises to keep the blood flowing in your legs. I assume the same circulatory benefit would
> apply to cycling.

As soon as you begin to exercise muscles, the circulatory system begins to adapt. The question isn't
whether exercise induces more circulation, I'm sure no one doubts that, it's whether simple no-load
motion improves circulation in already heavily exercised muscles over simple relaxation, an entirely
different, and not so obvious, question.

 

[Mark Lee]

"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> When lying in a hospital bed (something I had the misfortune of doing lately), they give you
> exercises to keep the blood flowing in your legs. I assume the same circulatory benefit would
> apply to cycling.
> --
I believe those white hospital support-hose would also be great! Mark Lee
P.S. I make the effort to keep my legs moving rolling downhill - mobilise those painful waste
products and re-oxygenate the muscles.

 

[Frank Miles]

In article <ecR9a.381606$be.351144@rwcrnsc53>, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>> > From what I've read, static contraction does inhibit circulation, but I'm not sure if there's
>an
>> > improvement in circulation with movement vs. motionless relaxation. There
>is a
>> > definite cost to movement, even no-load movement. Perhaps there's a cross
>over
>> > point, I don't know.
>>
>> When lying in a hospital bed (something I had the misfortune of doing lately), they give you
>> exercises to keep the blood flowing in your legs. I assume the same circulatory benefit would
>> apply to cycling.
>
>As soon as you begin to exercise muscles, the circulatory system begins to adapt. The question
>isn't whether exercise induces more circulation, I'm sure no one doubts that, it's whether simple
>no-load motion improves circulation in already heavily exercised muscles over simple relaxation, an
>entirely different, and not so obvious, question.

It seems obvious that motion (or even, though to a lesser degree, increasing and decreasing the
tension in a muscle) will increase blood flow to a leg muscle.

When a leg muscle is very active, the capillary bed within it opens up,
i.e. the total blood volume within it expands. It does relatively little good if flow is not
maintained. If the exercise is mild enough, say well below aerobic threshold in the muscle,
then it's probably not to significant if you stop pedalling for a short time. If the
muscles are truly "heavily exercised", then you probably don't want to stop moving
entirely, at least not for long. Again, it might be possible to partially compensate if you
are able to consciously tense and relax the muscle, though this is probably far less
efficient at moving blood.

The only "adaptation" that occurs -- even loosely speaking -- takes place over days and weeks
depending on muscular activity. I don't think you can "train" a muscle to overcome gravity, to
levitate the blood back to the heart. Given the lack of venous pressure, something else is required
to lift it back to the heart. Peripheral muscular action is it.

Of course, if you ride a recumbent this won't be as significant.

-frank
--

 

[Peter Cole]

"Frank Miles" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <ecR9a.381606$be.351144@rwcrnsc53>,
>
> It seems obvious that motion (or even, though to a lesser degree, increasing and decreasing the
> tension in a muscle) will increase blood flow to a leg muscle.

Well, that's the question: Does no-load leg movement significantly improve venous return, or does it
require skeletal muscle action (pumping) to improve it? Is venous return a limiting factor in
fatigue/recovery? A reminder to those who may have lost track, the issue at hand is whether spinning
the pedals when coasting improves muscle recovery significantly.