How ****ed am I?



Robert Chung wrote:
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
>>I've often considered the marketability of a bicycle sized treadmill,
>>both from a cost as well as a
>>where-do-you-put -the-damn-thing-when-you're-not-using-it standpoint.
>>
>>The ability to move around on your bike, moving the bike around, and
>>varying the pitch of the surface would surely make for strong
>>incentives to own such an item.
>
>
> http://www.bikeforest.com/tread/treadmillintro.html
>
>
Wow! A lawn mower attachment!

Do you have to wear a helmet while mowing the lawn?
 
Robert Chung wrote:
> When the mass is given as 74.0 +/- 6.3 kg, the 6.3 is the SD, not the
> limits of the range.

Good to see that I've exposed myself as a research naif. So the range
of subjects is much bigger than I thought.

>
> Gross efficiency appears to vary slightly and negatively (as one might
> expect) with mass, but not delta efficiency.
>
>

Yeah, and I guess my example was kinda contrived anyway.
 
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:02:16 +0100, Robert Chung wrote:
>> Holy ****. That's even worse than http://www.rowbike.com/
>
> Hmmm. What do you think of the Aviroute or the Row-K?
> http://www.aviroute-rowingbike.com/Rowing-Machine/rowingbike/man-on-rowingbike.jpg
> http://rowingbike.free.fr/german-rowingbike.jpg

Ah yes, the one I linked I could remember without googling, but those
are mind boggling. Try descending the Ventoux with this one!
http://www.geocities.com/rcgilmore3/ScullTrek.jpg


--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/
 
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:35:52 +0100, Robert Chung wrote:
> http://www.bikeforest.com/tread/treadmillintro.htm

Since the user is staying in the same place relative to the treadmill,
it's obvious that no work is being done, so power output must equal
zero. Right? It's surely zero on an indoor treadmill, and this is
the same, right?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:35:52 +0100, Robert Chung wrote:
>> http://www.bikeforest.com/tread/treadmillintro.htm
>
> Since the user is staying in the same place relative to the treadmill,
> it's obvious that no work is being done, so power output must equal
> zero. Right? It's surely zero on an indoor treadmill, and this is
> the same, right?

You're doing work on the treadmill. If you had a belt in with no resistance
to motion, you'd start pedalling slowly, the belt would go faster and
faster, eventually you'd be unable to keep up and fall off the bottom. But
all the time you're managing to keep up, the belt goes faster because you
are increasing its kinetic energy: doing work on it.

Peter
 
Suz wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> This still doesn't make sense to me. If a beginning rider, Leontin
> Van-Moorsel, and myself, all of us with similar lean body mass, were
to do,
> say 200 watts for an hour, it would probably be a moderate workout
for me,
> while the beginner would probably barely survive it, and LVM would be
taking
> a walk in the park. Are we to believe that these 3 same sized people
who
> worked at vastly different intensities, all burned about the same
number of
> calories?

Correct. If your average power and duration of workout were the same
you each did exactly the same amount of actual useful work (propelling
the bike forward, or up a hill). You also all burned the same number
of dietary calories, though there is a slight caveat to this. The
relationship between work done and the calories burned is the
biomechanical efficiency. If I recall, this efficiency varies between
22% and 25% and is somewhat dependent on your exertion level (think %
of lactate threshold). But, as you see, your energy use only varies
about 10% from bottom to top of this range.

>
> No, it's not making sense to me yet. Any of you smart physiologist
types
> willing to chime in on this one?
>
> Suz

I'm not a physioligist, but I play one on TV. I think your confusion
comes from the use of the same training intensity scale for people of
different fitness levels. Your example above is a good one to use.
Even though LVM might me doing a crossword puzzle (zone 1) during the
200 W effort she still burns the same number of calories as you riding
tempo (zone 3). Since her muscles and cardiovascular system are better
adapted they just deal with the load better and cause her less fatigue.
At the end of 2 hrs at 200W output you have each earned roughly 7
Original Glazed Krispy Kremes, though I don't recommend this as a post
ride recovery meal.

If you're trying to understand this, don't read musashi's posts.
He/she doesn't appear to understand work, power, or physiology
correctly.

Hope this helps,

Janek
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:35:52 +0100, Robert Chung wrote:
> > http://www.bikeforest.com/tread/treadmillintro.htm
>
> Since the user is staying in the same place relative to the
treadmill,
> it's obvious that no work is being done, so power output must equal
> zero. Right? It's surely zero on an indoor treadmill, and this is
> the same, right?
>
> JT
>

Oh, please no. We just lost half the people that started to understand
the distinction between power, energy, heart rate, and perceived
exertion.

Janek (also JT, but not the 'real' JT)
 
Ben wrote:
<snip>
> 400, 300, 200, and 100 watts. For convenience let's call them
> Crit Horner, Chris Pro, Ben Whiner, and Thom Kooklich, respectively.
>
> 1. Suppose they go on a group ride together...

I'd love to hear the conversations on that group ride!

> Rider avgwatts time Kcal burnt status at end of ride
> CH 200 60 min 720 cool as the other side of the pillow
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:)

The only other time I've ever heard that expression was with respect to Joe
Montana. Do you know if it's a common expression, and was it penned
(cleverly) for him originally?

Mark
(thinks Joe Montana was way cooler than CH)
 
"Carl Sundquist" wrote:
> I've often considered the marketability of a bicycle sized treadmill, both
> from a cost as well as a
> where-do-you-put -the-damn-thing-when-you're-not-using-it standpoint.
>
> The ability to move around on your bike, moving the bike around, and
varying
> the pitch of the surface would surely make for strong incentives to own
such
> an item.
>


Coincidentally, a friend of mine just hosted some folks from Portland who
brought a prototype of exactly that to Solvang for the Discovery Channel
boys to try last week. They all took turns on it and apparently Max tried to
shred the thing with some huge efforts. Apparently it held up fine. It has a
really big area, like 10' across, and you attach a tether to your seatpost
from behind so it can monitor where you are on the pad (?), adjusting the
speed accordingly. And, as you say, you can vary the pitch of the surface.
If Vince Gee still reads rbr, perhaps he could provide more details. It
sounds really cool.

> You probably couldn't sell one built for reliability for less than about
> $1500-2000, though.

Currently running $40K but with minor production they say $10K, which is
getting into some Masters Fatties' price range.

Mark
(didn't invite them for pizza)
 
Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>> I've often considered the marketability of a bicycle sized treadmill,
>> both from a cost as well as a
>> where-do-you-put -the-damn-thing-when-you're-not-using-it standpoint.
>>
>> The ability to move around on your bike, moving the bike around, and
>> varying the pitch of the surface would surely make for strong
>> incentives to own such an item.

> http://www.bikeforest.com/tread/treadmillintro.html

As a masters fattie, this is the bike I've been lusting after,
from the same people:

http://bikeforest.com/cb/

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]
 
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Suz wrote:
>> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> Wife doesn't believe husband who she describes as "pretty knowledgeable
>>> elite-level coach" and then asks Usenet for help? Yikes.
>>>
>> Oops, meant to say "*normally* pretty knowledgeable". But he's an
>> engineer, not a physiologist. And yes, I am probably a pain in the ass
>> to coach, thinking I know more than him all the time (which I don't).
>> BTW, he explained this watts/ calories concept in greater detail last
>> night, so I think I get it now. Maybe.
>
> Wife thinks she has to explain her marital dynamics to RBR? Double yikes.
>
umm, not sure what this has to do with marital dynamics, I was talking
strictly about conflicting training ideas, not what we do in bed. The idea
that it has something to do with my marriage was yours and yours alone.
'Scuse me for asking a friggin' question..
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bob Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:

> Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Carl Sundquist wrote:
> >> I've often considered the marketability of a bicycle sized treadmill,
> >> both from a cost as well as a
> >> where-do-you-put -the-damn-thing-when-you're-not-using-it standpoint.
> >>
> >> The ability to move around on your bike, moving the bike around, and
> >> varying the pitch of the surface would surely make for strong
> >> incentives to own such an item.
>
> > http://www.bikeforest.com/tread/treadmillintro.html
>
> As a masters fattie, this is the bike I've been lusting after,
> from the same people:
>
> http://bikeforest.com/cb/


That must be a prototype - it looks like they left off the adapter for
the TV.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Mark Fennell wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > 400, 300, 200, and 100 watts. For convenience let's call them
> > Crit Horner, Chris Pro, Ben Whiner, and Thom Kooklich,
respectively.
> >
> > 1. Suppose they go on a group ride together...
> I'd love to hear the conversations on that group ride!

Heh. One of my friends says an unusual thing about cycling
as a social activity is that you can talk, or not, as you
wish. You can ride with somebody for 10 minutes and not
talk and it's acceptable, where if you were sitting around
it would be pretty awkward.

> > Rider avgwatts time Kcal burnt status at end of ride
> > CH 200 60 min 720 cool as the other side of the
pillow

> The only other time I've ever heard that expression was with respect
to Joe
> Montana. Do you know if it's a common expression, and was it penned
> (cleverly) for him originally?

I dunno. It's been popularized by Sportscenter -
certainly one anchor, Stuart Scott used (overused) it.

It's also a Prince song, but sort of late Prince, post
Artist Formerly Known As period, after Joe Montana, but
before Stuart Scott I think. Future generations of
cultural historians will have their work cut out for
them figuring this one out.

There's probably a classics rider or two who deserves
the epithet (last spring, Rebellin while sitting on
Boogerd, perhaps).

Ben
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> musashi wrote:
> >> So, W/hr are good measures of performance
>
> Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> > What the friggin figsticks is W/hr?
>
> Watts / Hertz perhaps - a measurement of effort of drummers in rock bands.

**** Hertz?

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> Four hours on a trainer, even if broken up with several breaks, is
> like eight hours on the road. It's also like an eternity. And also
> like a year or two off your life.

Wasn't it in Catch-22 that one of the characters said he wanted to spend
as much time as possible in a state of boredom because time goes by much
slower when you're bored ?
 
musashi wrote:
>> So, W/hr are good measures of performance

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> What the friggin figsticks is W/hr?

Watts / Hertz perhaps - a measurement of effort of drummers in rock bands.
 
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:

> How long does it take to change a 100 W lightbulb?
> - About 10 seconds.
> So that's 36 kW/h.

Unless you're a computer programmer.
 
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>musashi wrote:
>>
>>>>So, W/hr are good measures of performance
>>
>>Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>>
>>>What the friggin figsticks is W/hr?
>>
>>Watts / Hertz perhaps - a measurement of effort of drummers in rock bands.
>
>
> **** Hertz?
>

Hertz Van Rental, the great Dutch rider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back