HEART RATE

Quoted message said:

Quoted post said:

On Apr 11, 12:34 am, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Apr 11, 12:31 am, Ted van de Weteringe

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote:
> Andrew Price wrote:
> > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Are tou sure you put the brackets right? Seems a bit pointless to
> separate 210 + 4.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

max hr formulas are techno-medico bull... do a standing out of the
saddle run up a tough incline, or hold a good sprint at the end of a
few hours on the road- you'll see your max or thereabouts; and you'll
see your max drop as you spend more time on the road- such as during
the spring. I read that eddy had a very low max, something like
150bpm...the point is that the max hr is a very personal thing, and
there is no formula or point in comparison to any other individual
than yourself; hr monitoring and bpm numbers are useful intelectual
exercises to help quantify the pain and serve as a distraction during
the activity, as an excuse to ease off or provide a mandate to
continue; but the activity concludes with results that essentually
speak for themselves and that being the object of the activity, the hr
values are irrelevant

Quoted message said:

Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up. A
good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up pretty
high up there. Getting your heart rate truly high is a pain in the ass
and I don't enjoy it that much. You should aim at getting dry heaves,
or even barfing. When I was younger I would do sprint repeats once a
weak. It was awful.

Quoted message said:

Andres- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

warm up of course; I have to go about 20 min to get to some worthwhile
inclines, so I was speaking from a personal perspective.

but I was thinking a bit more last night after I posted and I wonder
if the max hr is more of a pain threshold; the point where one says
"enough !" where someone else chooses to continue, I always feel I can
do more but don't because the agony becomes greater- this is
especially true of roller workouts where there are fewer variables to
influence the outcome; and the truth is I get scared that I might be
damaging my heart so I start to ease off then- but then at least I
know I can go that hard and survive, ergo "permission to continue"

dry heaves or barfing...never got there while training; but to the
blackout point a few times, but that is meaningless because the
question when cycling is where do you want to go ? how fast do you
want to go ? faster than before ? or faster than someone else ?; an
interesting example I had reciently is last week I did a 3hr hilly
ride which I felt went very well and discvovered after that almost to
the date 1 year ago I had recorded the same route under very similar
conditions; the times marked at the usual markers were within minutes
of each other and the hr graphs when overlayed and compared kilometer
to kilometer, was almost parallel. so what changed ? I was a year
older and and maybe 2 kgs lighter; avg hr; max hr; times, avg speed,
less than 2% difference.

I was thinking that at the point that you feel like barfing, passing
out, dizy, etc, you are pretty close to your max heart rate. In AT
(aerobic threshold) you feel the exhaustion and pain while trying to
maintain AT. This is when you are going close to max on a long hill.
This is the point that you produce lactic acid at the same rate or
slightly higher rate than you get rid of it. It hurts because you
accumulate lactic acid while your heart and breathing increase to get
rid of it.

With sprints, you don't necessarily feel the pain until a little after
the all out effort. In sprinting, you engage your anaerobic system.
and go until your legs give out. The all out part of a sprint may last
10 to 20 seconds. After that you can't go any more because your legs
are flooded with lactic acid. Then it takes a few seconds for your
heart to catch up to send enough blood to the muscles to start getting
rid of lactic acid. So, usually in the sprint, there is a delayed
effect where the heart does not increase and then when you stop, it
shoots up.

So, let's say that you are riding at around your AT and it is 170. At
that point, you sprint. If you look at your heart rate monitor it may
go to 174-176. When your legs give out and you stop, your heart will
keep going up to 185-190 and then it will start going down.

After a few sprints, the max heart rate that your monitor reads will
be pretty close to your true max, I think.

For some reason, in my case, when my heart rate and respiration shoots
up, I start to dry heave. If I do lots of sprints I end up with a
headache. I haven't had that feeling in a long time. Now, I am mister
aerobic. I can go forever and keep a hard effort within the Aerobic
range. However, I rarely get into AT or sprint, and I really don't
like to either.

Andres

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I only meant the comment in the context of someone trying to maximize
weight loss. Sure they would burn more by going harder, but it
wouldn't be something they could do for long enough.

Joseph, I think that people who ride to lose weight or to be "athletic" and
that sort of thing have a hard time maintaining a riding lifestyle. When
they start getting close to their target they begin to lose motivation for
riding.

I ride because I like to ride. I've done just about every sort of riding
there is. For instance, I ride with a couple of other people that ride like
me and today we were riding down a bike path and without even discussing it
turned down a dirt track and rode a couple of miles on gravel on road bikes
without any problems. I've noticed that a couple of people that ride with us
most of the time cannot stand getting off of asphalt unless it's onto
cement.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I only meant the comment in the context of someone trying to maximize
weight loss. Sure they would burn more by going harder, but it
wouldn't be something they could do for long enough.

Joseph, I think that people who ride to lose weight or to be "athletic" and
that sort of thing have a hard time maintaining a riding lifestyle. When
they start getting close to their target they begin to lose motivation for
riding.

Perhaps. But I also think the definetly run the risk of not
accomplishing much weight loss if they ride too hard. Ride hard for 1
hour and come home famished and pig out, and be too beat to ride the
next day. Or ride easy and not be famished and do it again tomorrow. A
lot less mental stress. 1 step forward each day vs 3 steps forward,
and 2 back.

Quoted message said:

I ride because I like to ride. I've done just about every sort of riding
there is. For instance, I ride with a couple of other people that ride like
me and today we were riding down a bike path and without even discussing it
turned down a dirt track and rode a couple of miles on gravel on road bikes
without any problems. I've noticed that a couple of people that ride with us
most of the time cannot stand getting off of asphalt unless it's onto
cement.

I see it as killing two birds with one stone. I like riding, and I
like being (sort of) fit. My bike interests go up and down in
different directions. Sometimes it's MTB for months, other times
fixed, then TT bike, and I even contemplate getting a low-racer
recumbent!

I am on a team of sorts (anyone who want to be on it can be, so I
guess it's more like a club) and we had our second group training ride
the other day. We practiced echelon riding. Speaking with a few guys,
I found out that this was their 2nd or 3rd ride for the year. They had
been going to health clubs and "spinning" to keep in shape. We had a
mild winter so I've been out on the road for hours every week because
it's fun. Riding indoors is like punishment if you ask me. I wondered
why they bother at all if they don't like it enough to do it any
chance they get.

Funny you mention that about dirt roads. A few rides ago with 2
buddies who have similar interests, we were on a long meandering loop
(riding fast) and found ourselves posed with the choice of 5km of dirt
road or 5km of asphalt to get where we were going. We chose the dirt
and played Eroica the who way arguing over who got to be Cancellara.

Joseph

Quoted post said:

Quoted message said:

On Apr 11, 7:20 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Apr 11, 12:34 am, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On Apr 11, 12:31 am, Ted van de Weteringe

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > Andrew Price wrote:
> > > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Are tou sure you put the brackets right? Seems a bit pointless to
> > separate 210 + 4.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> max hr formulas are techno-medico bull... do a standing out of the
> saddle run up a tough incline, or hold a good sprint at the end of a
> few hours on the road- you'll see your max or thereabouts; and you'll
> see your max drop as you spend more time on the road- such as during
> the spring. I read that eddy had a very low max, something like
> 150bpm...the point is that the max hr is a very personal thing, and
> there is no formula or point in comparison to any other individual
> than yourself; hr monitoring and bpm numbers are useful intelectual
> exercises to help quantify the pain and serve as a distraction during
> the activity, as an excuse to ease off or provide a mandate to
> continue; but the activity concludes with results that essentually
> speak for themselves and that being the object of the activity, the hr
> values are irrelevant

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up. A
good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up pretty
high up there. Getting your heart rate truly high is a pain in the ass
and I don't enjoy it that much. You should aim at getting dry heaves,
or even barfing. When I was younger I would do sprint repeats once a
weak. It was awful.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Andres- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

warm up of course; I have to go about 20 min to get to some worthwhile
inclines, so I was speaking from a personal perspective.

Quoted message said:

but I was thinking a bit more last night after I posted and I wonder
if the max hr is more of a pain threshold; the point where one says
"enough !" where someone else chooses to continue, I always feel I can
do more but don't because the agony becomes greater- this is
especially true of roller workouts where there are fewer variables to
influence the outcome; and the truth is I get scared that I might be
damaging my heart so I start to ease off then- but then at least I
know I can go that hard and survive, ergo "permission to continue"

Quoted message said:

dry heaves or barfing...never got there while training; but to the
blackout point a few times, but that is meaningless because the
question when cycling is where do you want to go ? how fast do you
want to go ? faster than before ? or faster than someone else ?; an
interesting example I had reciently is last week I did a 3hr hilly
ride which I felt went very well and discvovered after that almost to
the date 1 year ago I had recorded the same route under very similar
conditions; the times marked at the usual markers were within minutes
of each other and the hr graphs when overlayed and compared kilometer
to kilometer, was almost parallel. so what changed ? I was a year
older and and maybe 2 kgs lighter; avg hr; max hr; times, avg speed,
less than 2% difference.

I was thinking that at the point that you feel like barfing, passing
out, dizy, etc, you are pretty close to your max heart rate. In AT
(aerobic threshold) you feel the exhaustion and pain while trying to
maintain AT. This is when you are going close to max on a long hill.
This is the point that you produce lactic acid at the same rate or
slightly higher rate than you get rid of it. It hurts because you
accumulate lactic acid while your heart and breathing increase to get
rid of it.

With sprints, you don't necessarily feel the pain until a little after
the all out effort. In sprinting, you engage your anaerobic system.
and go until your legs give out. The all out part of a sprint may last
10 to 20 seconds. After that you can't go any more because your legs
are flooded with lactic acid. Then it takes a few seconds for your
heart to catch up to send enough blood to the muscles to start getting
rid of lactic acid. So, usually in the sprint, there is a delayed
effect where the heart does not increase and then when you stop, it
shoots up.

So, let's say that you are riding at around your AT and it is 170. At
that point, you sprint. If you look at your heart rate monitor it may
go to 174-176. When your legs give out and you stop, your heart will
keep going up to 185-190 and then it will start going down.

After a few sprints, the max heart rate that your monitor reads will
be pretty close to your true max, I think.

For some reason, in my case, when my heart rate and respiration shoots
up, I start to dry heave. If I do lots of sprints I end up with a
headache. I haven't had that feeling in a long time. Now, I am mister
aerobic. I can go forever and keep a hard effort within the Aerobic
range. However, I rarely get into AT or sprint, and I really don't
like to either.

Andres- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the numbers you cite are fairly close to what I see; as I used the at
threshold to achieve personal best times; on rollers I knew I could go
all out the last 2 1/2 to 3 min. tops- but then that would be it- so I
saved that for the end of a workout; on the road, trying personal best
out and back circuit it was a question of maintaining a sustainable
level of activity; when I had to stop for a light the lactic acid
would flood my legs and cause real groaning agony but when the light
turned green again getting back up to speed was a way to flush the
lactic out. I can't say I ever had an effective sprint on the flat;
but the uphill was the one where you blew before the crest or had
enough to keep it rolling over the top- by my experience the max hr
was neared on the uphill but by virtue of the fact that the hr max
recorded being about the same as the max on the indoor roller yet I am
able to continue on the road I believe other factors such as
overheating has as much if not more to do with the recorded hr max
than lactate acid buildup in those few minutes of extreme activity;
still, when I ease off, is it really because I am forced to or is it
because I choose to? I always believe the latter, and that there is
something more to give, but my mind finds some excuse to give in than
to persist and that might be the difference between someone who is a
champion racer and someone who is not (as I am not).

email hidden said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fats and carbs will be burned at higher intensities as well, but I
agree that using HR is a nice way to keep the intensity at a level
that doesn't waste time by being too easy, nor too hard which could
result in less total work due to burnout.

Quoted message said:

So, Joe, you ride a bike only as a workout?

Nope. That's partly why I don't use an HRM either.

I only meant the comment in the context of someone trying to maximize
weight loss. Sure they would burn more by going harder, but it
wouldn't be something they could do for long enough.

Joseph

going harder you use up the blood sugar in your system; like burning
gasoline- going slower over a longer period of time it is said burns
more fat cells even though the caloric expenditure may be numerically
less; further, post ride effects should be considered, going harder
will result in more muscle mass to accomodate the physical strain of a
regular activity whereas an extended duration won't lead to bigger
muscles, just better definition of what is already there by
reducuction of fatty tissue overall

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

going harder you use up the blood sugar in your system; like burning
gasoline- going slower over a longer period of time it is said burns
more fat cells even though the caloric expenditure may be numerically
less; further, post ride effects should be considered, going harder
will result in more muscle mass to accomodate the physical strain of a
regular activity whereas an extended duration won't lead to bigger
muscles, just better definition of what is already there by
reducuction of fatty tissue overall

There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very hard
over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very hard
your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone 2. But
the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for work is Work
= Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.

Now you can argue that someone that is riding faster can cover more distance
in a given time and hence increase his work load. That's correct but most
people define a ride by distance and not time. That is they say, "Let's ride
to Crockville for a cup of coffee and then return."

Quoted message said:

There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very hard
over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very hard
your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone 2. But
the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for work is Work
= Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.

Actually, Work = Force x Distance, and the force here includes air resistance,
which does depend on speed.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

going harder you use up the blood sugar in your system; like burning
gasoline- going slower over a longer period of time it is said burns
more fat cells even though the caloric expenditure may be numerically
less; further, post ride effects should be considered, going harder
will result in more muscle mass to accomodate the physical strain of a
regular activity whereas an extended duration won't lead to bigger
muscles, just better definition of what is already there by
reducuction of fatty tissue overall

There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very hard
over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very hard
your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone 2. But
the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for work is Work
= Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.

Now you can argue that someone that is riding faster can cover more distance
in a given time and hence increase his work load. That's correct but most
people define a ride by distance and not time. That is they say, "Let's ride
to Crockville for a cup of coffee and then return."

On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
with speed. You are american engineer yes?

Credo

"Barry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very
hard over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very
hard your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone
2. But the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for
work is Work = Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.

Actually, Work = Force x Distance, and the force here includes air
resistance, which does depend on speed.

My apologies and of course you're correct.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very
hard
over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very
hard
your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone 2.
But
the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for work is
Work
= Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.

Now you can argue that someone that is riding faster can cover more
distance
in a given time and hence increase his work load. That's correct but
most
people define a ride by distance and not time. That is they say, "Let's
ride
to Crockville for a cup of coffee and then return."

On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
with speed. You are american engineer yes?

As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula. However,
the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed but
in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is reduced.

Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight going
fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly. And yet
riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances seems to work well
at reducing weight.

Tom Kunich cyclintom@yahoo said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
with speed. You are american engineer yes?

As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula. However,
the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed but
in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is reduced.

Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
quite a bit more.

Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.

Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
minutes and 742 Calories.

The calculator assumes the human body has the same mechanical efficiency
at 100W as it does at 200W so this is just the effect of the wind.

Quoted message said:

Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
seems to work well at reducing weight.

I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.

Peter Grange said:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:22:14 -0700 (PDT),

Quoted post said:

Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

How do you induce max heart rate, without finding out it won't go
_that_ fast and having the rate abruptly return to zero?

Like the poster says, you induce it. When you reach your maximum, the
heart doesn't explode, it just stops beating faster. It's not unlike
the converse: as you go into deep relaxation and then sleep, your
heart doesn't shut down for a spell.

Woland99 said:

datakoll said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl...

Border line disinformation. For me HRM is a bit like metronome -
it is not to see how fast I can get but to keep steady manageable
tempo. If I understand the idea correctly - effective burning of
carbs and any burning of fat needs steady oxygen supply - so it
is better to keep yourself in mostly aerobic zone.

You appear to be stating that a steady spirited effort will produce
the most benefit to the individual. The actuality is that mixed
training, intense short sessions, long slow ones, and ones in-between
produce the most benefit by increasing the individual's vo2max.
Training programs not just miles makes all the difference. It's not
obvious but it's true nonentheless.

Runner's sites do a better job(IMHO) of explaining this concept than
cycling sites. I like this one in particular(if you're interested):
http://www.powerrunning.com/index.htm

Carl Sundquist said:

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"datakoll" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Then there are the differences among sports. Swimmers, for example,
have lower heart rates when they swim than runners when they run. The
reason, Dr. O'Connor explained, is that during running, your heart has
to push blood against gravity to bring it to your head. During
swimming, your heart does not have to exert that extra force."
"Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up.
A
good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up
pretty
high up there."
In cycle riding position then what? Warming up, awakening lactose
cycles in the hands, arms, neck, tissue surounding cranial nerve
pathways on the neck and shoulders, back muscles takes several short
sprints up-standing? Better to stretch and jog before riding or
swimming.
Your warmup may indicate a training hole where the lactose threshold
is slow to respond. Read Carmichael/Armstrong's training manual. As I
ease up on the total mileage, my lactose threshold moves further away
into each ride. Before cutting back from daily 25 mile rides, that
threshold was bang off the start with no lag.
Somewhere here is written something about aerobic thresholds.
Practically, aerobic energy supply doesn't contribute to riding hard.
On pumping capacity: short frequent runs may give larger gains than
stressing the heart to max. Try squeezing a tennis ball in each hand
to pump blood back up your arms, relaxes the atrium.

Swimming has lower HRs because the water helps remove heat from the
body so much better. Competition pools are kept at 78 degrees F.

Also, wouldn't the blood descending from the head help to offset the
pressure needed to return the blood from the lower extremities back up
to the heart?

It's plausible that that would offset some, but blood volume from heart
upward has got to be far less than blood volume from heart downward,
plus the vertical distance is so much less on the upper side than the lower.

Mark J.

Carl Sundquist said:

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"datakoll" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Then there are the differences among sports. Swimmers, for example,
have lower heart rates when they swim than runners when they run. The
reason, Dr. O'Connor explained, is that during running, your heart has
to push blood against gravity to bring it to your head. During
swimming, your heart does not have to exert that extra force."
"Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up.
A
good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up
pretty
high up there."
In cycle riding position then what? Warming up, awakening lactose
cycles in the hands, arms, neck, tissue surounding cranial nerve
pathways on the neck and shoulders, back muscles takes several short
sprints up-standing?  Better to stretch and jog before riding or
swimming.
Your warmup may indicate a training hole where the lactose threshold
is slow to respond. Read Carmichael/Armstrong's training manual. As I
ease up on the total mileage, my lactose threshold moves further away
into each ride. Before cutting back from daily 25 mile rides, that
threshold was bang off the start with no lag.
Somewhere here is written something about aerobic thresholds.
Practically, aerobic energy supply doesn't contribute to riding hard.
On pumping capacity: short frequent runs may give larger gains than
stressing the heart to max. Try squeezing a tennis ball in each hand
to pump blood back up your arms, relaxes the atrium.

Quoted message said:

Swimming has lower HRs because the water helps remove heat from the body
so much better. Competition pools are kept at 78 degrees F.

Also, wouldn't the blood descending from the head help to offset the
pressure needed to return the blood from the lower extremities back up to
the heart?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BLOOD POOLS itsa hit!!!! BLOOD POOOOOLS YAH YAH ect

sounds like the villagers on on the way up your driveway

ever watch the single red cell jam through a single wall capillary?
that's where the action is
no pressure and .....
please eard post 33

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

going harder you use up the blood sugar in your system; like burning
gasoline- going slower over a longer period of time it is said burns
more fat cells even though the caloric expenditure may be numerically
less; further, post ride effects should be considered, going harder
will result in more muscle mass to accomodate the physical strain of a
regular activity whereas an extended duration won't lead to bigger
muscles, just better definition of what is already there by
reducuction of fatty tissue overall

There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very hard
over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very hard
your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone 2. But
the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for work is Work
= Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.

Now you can argue that someone that is riding faster can cover more distance
in a given time and hence increase his work load. That's correct but most
people define a ride by distance and not time. That is they say, "Let's ride
to Crockville for a cup of coffee and then return."

There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very
hard
over any specific length of road.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"datakoll" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Then there are the differences among sports. Swimmers, for example,
have lower heart rates when they swim than runners when they run. The
reason, Dr. O'Connor explained, is that during running, your heart has
to push blood against gravity to bring it to your head. During
swimming, your heart does not have to exert that extra force."
"Yours is a good way of doing it. Ideally, you want to be warmed up.
A
good way of doing it is to do several short sprints up a hill after a
good warm up. By the fifth or six sprint, your heart rate should get
up there. Running up hill sprints should also get your heart up
pretty
high up there."
In cycle riding position then what? Warming up, awakening lactose
cycles in the hands, arms, neck, tissue surounding cranial nerve
pathways on the neck and shoulders, back muscles takes several short
sprints up-standing? Better to stretch and jog before riding or
swimming.
Your warmup may indicate a training hole where the lactose threshold
is slow to respond. Read Carmichael/Armstrong's training manual. As I
ease up on the total mileage, my lactose threshold moves further away
into each ride. Before cutting back from daily 25 mile rides, that
threshold was bang off the start with no lag.
Somewhere here is written something about aerobic thresholds.
Practically, aerobic energy supply doesn't contribute to riding hard.
On pumping capacity: short frequent runs may give larger gains than
stressing the heart to max. Try squeezing a tennis ball in each hand
to pump blood back up your arms, relaxes the atrium.

Swimming has lower HRs because the water helps remove heat from the body so
much better. Competition pools are kept at 78 degrees F.

Do swimmers go faster in the turns?

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck said:

Do swimmers go faster in the turns?

They do loops, not turns.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

There is VERY little difference between riding slowly and riding very
hard
over any specific length of road. The difference is that riding very
hard
your muscles don't work quite a efficiently as riding in your Zone 2.
But
the difference is not significant. You'll note that formula for work is
Work
= Weight x Distance. There's no speed in the equation.

Now you can argue that someone that is riding faster can cover more
distance
in a given time and hence increase his work load. That's correct but
most
people define a ride by distance and not time. That is they say, "Let's
ride
to Crockville for a cup of coffee and then return."

On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
with speed. You are american engineer yes?

As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula. However,
the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed but
in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is reduced.

Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight going
fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly. And yet
riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances seems to work well
at reducing weight.

To lose weight means to burn fat.
Blasting out of the chocks and riding near
red line for an hour will burn some fat and
totally deplete glycogen.

Riding hard for two or three hours, conserving
glycogen will burn more fat.

Either case eat some good carbohydrates
immediately after the ride to feed the muscles.

--
Michael Press