How important is flexibility (of my body)?



M

Mike Beauchamp

Guest
Hey all,
I'm 24.. and I can't even come close to touching my toes. Since I'm going to
start a weight training thingy in a few weeks, I'm wondering if I should
also really concentrate on my flexibility?

This dude at school does yoga and said that getting too flexible may be a
bad thing in terms of performance? But I'm not going for land speed records
obviously, I just want to be able to cycle 100KM nearly every day without
problems.

Peace

Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com
 
"Mike Beauchamp" wrote:
> I'm 24.. and I can't even come close to touching my toes. Since I'm going

to
> start a weight training thingy in a few weeks, I'm wondering if I should
> also really concentrate on my flexibility?
>
> This dude at school does yoga and said that getting too flexible may be a
> bad thing in terms of performance? But I'm not going for land speed
> records obviously, I just want to be able to cycle 100KM nearly every day
> without problems.


I think flexibility is more important than weight training for cycling, and
also for general heath/fitness as you get older.

Art Harris
 
Thanks art.. always appreciated.

Mike

"Arthur Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Beauchamp" wrote:
> > I'm 24.. and I can't even come close to touching my toes. Since I'm
> > going

> to
>> start a weight training thingy in a few weeks, I'm wondering if I should
>> also really concentrate on my flexibility?
>>
>> This dude at school does yoga and said that getting too flexible may be a
>> bad thing in terms of performance? But I'm not going for land speed
>> records obviously, I just want to be able to cycle 100KM nearly every day
>> without problems.

>
> I think flexibility is more important than weight training for cycling,
> and also for general heath/fitness as you get older.
>
> Art Harris
>
 
: I'm 24.. and I can't even come close to touching my toes. Since I'm going
to
: start a weight training thingy in a few weeks, I'm wondering if I should
: also really concentrate on my flexibility?
:
: This dude at school does yoga and said that getting too flexible may be a
: bad thing in terms of performance? But I'm not going for land speed
records
: obviously, I just want to be able to cycle 100KM nearly every day without
: problems.
:
: Peace
:
: Mike
:

First, define "too flexible". You have a long way to go to get even near
being "too flexible" by any definition. Work on it--especially the
hamstrings as they tighten up fast on long distances.

Pat in TX
 
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
>> I think flexibility is more important than weight training for cycling,
>> and also for general heath/fitness as you get older.
>>
>> Art Harris

>
> Art: I can't come close to touching my toes... never have. But I can ride
> all day on a bicycle and not get tired or feel stressed anywhere. For me,
> cycling is the cure, not the problem. If I feel a bit stiff at the start
> of a bike ride, I always feel better shortly into it.


No disagreement there. Anyone who regularly rides long distances on drop
bars is going to have a pretty flexible back. But for beginner riders,
besides poor fit, I think lack of flexibility is a leading cause of aches
and pains during and after a ride. And touching the toes isn't necessarily
the best indicator of flexibility.

Art Harris
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mike Beauchamp <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hey all,
>I'm 24.. and I can't even come close to touching my toes. Since I'm going to
>start a weight training thingy in a few weeks, I'm wondering if I should
>also really concentrate on my flexibility?
>
>This dude at school does yoga and said that getting too flexible may be a
>bad thing in terms of performance? But I'm not going for land speed records
>obviously, I just want to be able to cycle 100KM nearly every day without
>problems.
>
>Peace
>
>Mike
>http://mikebeauchamp.com


Troll. From his 'website':

"Hear what Mike is doing 24 hours a day, using live audio
broadcast from his bedroom. Also includes weekly ramblings and
other goodies. This website has a microphone device connected
to the internet broadcasting real audio (realaudio) 24 hours a
day. Listen to what I am doing in my bedroom, like a voyeur of
some sorts. Your browser is not frames compatible, go to
Microsoft and download Internet Explorer 5 or Netscape
Navigator latest version."

-Sledge
 
: Troll. From his 'website':
:
: "Hear what Mike is doing 24 hours a day, using live audio
: broadcast from his bedroom. Also includes weekly ramblings and
: other goodies. This website has a microphone device connected
: to the internet broadcasting real audio (realaudio) 24 hours a
: day. Listen to what I am doing in my bedroom, like a voyeur of
: some sorts. Your browser is not frames compatible, go to
: Microsoft and download Internet Explorer 5 or Netscape
: Navigator latest version."
:
: -Sledge

Well, in that case, he ought to get to where he's able to stuff his head up
his ass. Evidently, he has a good start in that direction.

Pat in Tx
:
 
Sledge... I don't get it...

But thanks for reading the 5 year old description of my webiste and judging
me on it... As for me being a troll, I've been in rec.bicycles.* for well
over a year now. I've been a bike mechanic since highschool, and I used to
race cross country until I dislocated my knee cap while playing hockey.
After a few surguries and a few years I now ride again, but no offroad
stuff. I don't own a car, and I commute everywhere on my bicycle. The reason
I'm asking this question about flexibility is that I plan on trying to ride
across Canada in the summer.

As for the website, the "live bedroom audio" thing was something I did 5
years ago as a joke and took it down several months later... Since then,
I've had an r/c car able to be controlled over the internet as well as an
Atari 2600 (which was covered by many websites/tv shows/magazines) and
currently I have a home built pan/tilt webcam in my basement which can be
controlled over the internet.

Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com



"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> : Troll. From his 'website':
> :
> : "Hear what Mike is doing 24 hours a day, using live audio
> : broadcast from his bedroom. Also includes weekly ramblings and
> : other goodies. This website has a microphone device connected
> : to the internet broadcasting real audio (realaudio) 24 hours a
> : day. Listen to what I am doing in my bedroom, like a voyeur of
> : some sorts. Your browser is not frames compatible, go to
> : Microsoft and download Internet Explorer 5 or Netscape
> : Navigator latest version."
> :
> : -Sledge
>
> Well, in that case, he ought to get to where he's able to stuff his head
> up
> his ass. Evidently, he has a good start in that direction.
>
> Pat in Tx
> :
>
>
 
Pat, I can't define the "too flexibile" thing, since it was something my
friend at school said to me. At the time, I didn't ask him to define it or
elaborate it.

I guess my question may be better off asked.. can the hamstrings tighten
without stretching where they can make cycling difficult?

But thanks for the info, I'll definitely look into proper stretching.

Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com

"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> : I'm 24.. and I can't even come close to touching my toes. Since I'm
> going
> to
> : start a weight training thingy in a few weeks, I'm wondering if I should
> : also really concentrate on my flexibility?
> :
> : This dude at school does yoga and said that getting too flexible may be
> a
> : bad thing in terms of performance? But I'm not going for land speed
> records
> : obviously, I just want to be able to cycle 100KM nearly every day
> without
> : problems.
> :
> : Peace
> :
> : Mike
> :
>
> First, define "too flexible". You have a long way to go to get even near
> being "too flexible" by any definition. Work on it--especially the
> hamstrings as they tighten up fast on long distances.
>
> Pat in TX
>
>
 
Thanks Mike/Art,
I appreciate the responses..

Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com

"Arthur Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4JjBd.27354$%[email protected]...
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
>>> I think flexibility is more important than weight training for cycling,
>>> and also for general heath/fitness as you get older.
>>>
>>> Art Harris

>>
>> Art: I can't come close to touching my toes... never have. But I can ride
>> all day on a bicycle and not get tired or feel stressed anywhere. For me,
>> cycling is the cure, not the problem. If I feel a bit stiff at the start
>> of a bike ride, I always feel better shortly into it.

>
> No disagreement there. Anyone who regularly rides long distances on drop
> bars is going to have a pretty flexible back. But for beginner riders,
> besides poor fit, I think lack of flexibility is a leading cause of aches
> and pains during and after a ride. And touching the toes isn't necessarily
> the best indicator of flexibility.
>
> Art Harris
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mike Beauchamp <[email protected]> wrote:
>Sledge... I don't get it...
>
>But thanks for reading the 5 year old description of my webiste and judging
>me on it... As for me being a troll, I've been in rec.bicycles.* for well
>over a year now. I've been a bike mechanic since highschool, and I used to
>race cross country until I dislocated my knee cap while playing hockey.
>After a few surguries and a few years I now ride again, but no offroad
>stuff. I don't own a car, and I commute everywhere on my bicycle. The reason
>I'm asking this question about flexibility is that I plan on trying to ride
>across Canada in the summer.
>
>As for the website, the "live bedroom audio" thing was something I did 5
>years ago as a joke and took it down several months later... Since then,
>I've had an r/c car able to be controlled over the internet as well as an
>Atari 2600 (which was covered by many websites/tv shows/magazines) and
>currently I have a home built pan/tilt webcam in my basement which can be
>controlled over the internet.
>
>Mike
>http://mikebeauchamp.com


All I did was load your URL into lynx and this was the only
thing on my screen, and is the complete text I saw.

I'm sure you can imagine why someone surfing your site, and
seeing this and only this might conclude that this was a troll.

-Sledge


>"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> : Troll. From his 'website':
>> :
>> : "Hear what Mike is doing 24 hours a day, using live audio
>> : broadcast from his bedroom. Also includes weekly ramblings and
>> : other goodies. This website has a microphone device connected
>> : to the internet broadcasting real audio (realaudio) 24 hours a
>> : day. Listen to what I am doing in my bedroom, like a voyeur of
>> : some sorts. Your browser is not frames compatible, go to
>> : Microsoft and download Internet Explorer 5 or Netscape
>> : Navigator latest version."
>> :
>> : -Sledge
>>
>> Well, in that case, he ought to get to where he's able to stuff his head
>> up
>> his ass. Evidently, he has a good start in that direction.
>>
>> Pat in Tx
>> :
>>
>>

>
>
 
Sledge wrote:

I'm sure you can imagine why someone surfing your site, and
seeing this and only this might conclude that this was a troll.

and then Pat in Tx <[email protected]> wrote:

Well, in that case, he ought to get to where he's able to stuff his head
up his ass. Evidently, he has a good start in that direction.

Sledge and Pat

You both leapt well before you looked.

We should evaluate somebody's sincerity based on the content of their
/posts/, not their personal websites (whether or not they provide a link in
their signature).

Sledge, you made a choice to visit his personal site. You didn't have to.
Judging him based on /its/ content was pretty flimsy.

Pat, you . . . well you just jumped to a conclusion (and launched a low ad
hominem attack) based on bad /and/ irrelevant information. You may want to
consider apologizing to Mr. Beauchamp (who has been a regular and thoughtful
contributor on these boards).

Happy New Year, all!

Neil
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>Sledge wrote:
>
>I'm sure you can imagine why someone surfing your site, and
>seeing this and only this might conclude that this was a troll.
>
>and then Pat in Tx <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Well, in that case, he ought to get to where he's able to stuff his head
>up his ass. Evidently, he has a good start in that direction.
>
>Sledge and Pat
>
>You both leapt well before you looked.
>
>We should evaluate somebody's sincerity based on the content of their
>/posts/, not their personal websites (whether or not they provide a link in
>their signature).
>
>Sledge, you made a choice to visit his personal site. You didn't have to.
>Judging him based on /its/ content was pretty flimsy.


Good point. Apologies to him and to Pat for the bad info. He
seems like a good kid.

-Sledge

>
>Pat, you . . . well you just jumped to a conclusion (and launched a low ad
>hominem attack) based on bad /and/ irrelevant information. You may want to
>consider apologizing to Mr. Beauchamp (who has been a regular and thoughtful
>contributor on these boards).
>
>Happy New Year, all!
>
>Neil
>
>
 
> We should evaluate somebody's sincerity based on the content of their
> /posts/, not their personal websites (whether or not they provide a link
> in
> their signature).
>
> Sledge, you made a choice to visit his personal site. You didn't have to.
> Judging him based on /its/ content was pretty flimsy.


Thanks Neil.. much appreciated.

Mike
 
Neil, did you stop to think that he claims he took this site down 5 years
ago!

Pat in TX
 
: > We should evaluate somebody's sincerity based on the content of their
: > /posts/, not their personal websites (whether or not they provide a link
: > in
: > their signature).
: >
: > Sledge, you made a choice to visit his personal site. You didn't have
to.
: > Judging him based on /its/ content was pretty flimsy.
:
: Thanks Neil.. much appreciated.
:
: Mike

1. Why should somebody NOT evaluate based on the content of a personal
website? This gives a clue to the person who is posting and is not
irrelevant.
2. Why is the site still active if Mike says he removed the content 5 years
ago?
3. If he didn't want us to visit the site, why did he post it?
4. To me, it is as if he is saying, "this is my site but it isn't really
me".

I am still skeptical.

Pat in TX
:
:
 
Pat wrote:
> Neil, did you stop to think that he claims he took this site down 5
> years ago!


One day . . . not today . . . I'll ask you to explain the relevance of this
to me.

Meanwhile, it might be worth your while to use Google's search function to
review Mr. Beauchamp's posts to the R.B.* newsgroups. If--after doing
that--you still believe him to be a "troll," perhaps you'd be so kind as to
share your reasoning with us all.

Here's a start:
http://snipurl.com/bph9
http://snipurl.com/bpha

In cases where the "TROLL" bell sounds loudly in your head, I think
reviewing their personal website may make some sense, (though I suspect most
trolls don't link the reader to their /actual/ personal websites).

Then, if you have gone to the length of reviewing their personal website,
may I suggest the following use for that journey:

Think of this as a court trial. Use your experience on that website only to
weight the credibility of the contributor's newsgroup posts. If you think a
contributor's personal web pages (bicycle related or otherwise) make them
out to be an imbecile, you might simply give their testimony less weight.

Conversely, if their personal web pages convince you that they are a person
of great wisdom, you may take their NG contributions as the gospel. Sheldon
Brown, for instance (gratuitous sycophancy designed to, one day, get me a
discount on parts).

Neil
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mike Beauchamp <[email protected]> wrote:
>> We should evaluate somebody's sincerity based on the content of their
>> /posts/, not their personal websites (whether or not they provide a link
>> in
>> their signature).
>>
>> Sledge, you made a choice to visit his personal site. You didn't have to.
>> Judging him based on /its/ content was pretty flimsy.

>
>Thanks Neil.. much appreciated.
>
>Mike


Yes, a mistake on my part. In the middle of a reply, I jumped
out of 'trn' and took a quick look at the website in 'lynx' and
when I saw the text I quoted, which was the entirety of the
site displayed in that text browser, I foolishly jumped to a
conclusion, though I was dismayed by the content of the text.

Mike is apparently college age student with eclectic interests,
and seems like a nice kid. He's the one that had his bike
stolen, (actually two bikes) but I didn't realize this at first.

Again, apologies on my part. I just got confused and failed to
remember his previous posts.

-Sledge
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Sandor) writes:

> Yes, a mistake on my part. In the middle of a reply, I jumped
> out of 'trn' and took a quick look at the website in 'lynx' and
> when I saw the text I quoted, which was the entirety of the
> site displayed in that text browser, I foolishly jumped to a
> conclusion, though I was dismayed by the content of the text.


I got a kick out of the: "Your browser is not frames compatible,
go to Microsoft and download Internet Explorer 5 or Netscape
Navigator latest version" part.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> : > We should evaluate somebody's sincerity based on the content of their
> : > /posts/, not their personal websites (whether or not they provide a

link
> : > in
> : > their signature).
> : >
> : > Sledge, you made a choice to visit his personal site. You didn't have
> to.
> : > Judging him based on /its/ content was pretty flimsy.
> :
> : Thanks Neil.. much appreciated.
> :
> : Mike
>
> 1. Why should somebody NOT evaluate based on the content of a personal
> website? This gives a clue to the person who is posting and is not
> irrelevant.
> 2. Why is the site still active if Mike says he removed the content 5

years
> ago?
> 3. If he didn't want us to visit the site, why did he post it?
> 4. To me, it is as if he is saying, "this is my site but it isn't really
> me".
>
> I am still skeptical.


Mike B. has posted in here before -- I remember reading his posts posts and
looking at pics of his bike, and looking at the web cam. I really don't
think he's a troll.
 

Similar threads