Carl Fogel writes:
>>>> The example you give are for different functions that are complementary in the sport. Pedaling
>>>> is a singular effort and it is best done with the principal muscles that humans develop
>>>> naturally. As I said, adding hand cranks to a bicycle do not improve propulsion.
>>>> There is another exercise that makes the effect more apparent and that is to ride at a high
>>>> constant rate on the level while mentally counting cadence 1-2-3-1-2-3... on each down stroke
>>>> while monitoring speed on a speedometer. Changing the regimen to push down only on the count of
>>>> "1" reduces power strokes to 1/3 as many, yet speed at the same effort will remain constant.
>>>> There is no benefit to this method other than to show that the effort is cardiovascular and not
>>>> round pedaling or PowerCranks.
>>> Are you saying that I should be able to maintain my highest normal level speed for miles by
>>> whirling my feet at the same cadence, but applying pressure only every third stroke?
>> Don't be so indirect. What is it you do not understand about the above text? I think it is
>> unambiguously stated and your searching questions seem a circuitous way of expressing disbelief.
>> Go out and try it and make you comments about that.
>>> Will I need to press three times as hard as normal every third stroke? Perhaps this is covered
>>> by "the same effort" in your brief example?
>> I think he's got it. I think he's got it. The rain in Sp...
>>> On a related note, why do distance swimmers use both their arms and legs?
>> Because they don't have a tail like a fish that propels itself with a single propulsion limb, so
>> to speak. You might as well ask why fish wag their tails from side to side for propulsion while
>> cetaceans wag up and down.
>>> Why do cross-country skiers use their poles while striding? I'm ignorant of these sports, but
>>> have the impression that they involve using all four limbs, not just two, and make huge
>>> cardiovascular demands.
>> Deep and searching questions, I see... How about golfers?
> Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other? I can't see how your example works or even applies, and
> your reply hasn't cleared things up.
> Our subject seems to be what limits our performance.
> You seem to be saying that it's the cardiovascular system, not his leg muscles, which sounds
> plausible in a general way to a layman like me.
> But I can't make sense out of your example. In this thread, you've said that a rider can set a
> brisk pace with two legs on level ground and continue to maintain the same pace with the same
> effort by pedaling more forcefully every third stroke and not applying pressure on the other two
> strokes in a One!-two-three fashion.
> How does this address cardiovascular limits?
It shows that a rider is able to push harder intermittently than continuously and that the
difference arises from rest time in which the muscles can be resupplies. It is similar to stopping
on a climb for a shot time and noticing that the grade wasn't so steep after all when restarting.
Intermittent pedaling shows that it is not a lack of muscular force that limits speed but rather how
well these muscles are fed with energy.
> You do, after all, limit your case to level ground and a "brisk" pace. This doesn't sound as if
> any cardiovascular limit is being tested.
That is because only on such terrain a letup in pedaling does not immediately reduce speed as it
would on a hill where speed is low and momentum likewise. That is not the issue.
> Nor, if you'll forgive my doubts, does it seem likely from your frequent posts that you've
> measured such efforts in meaningful way. That is, I haven't noticed any posts in which you've
> mentioned wearing heart-rate or more esoteric monitors.
I use an accurate speedometer to measure speed in 0.1mph resolution. How would you measure speed
variations at your speed threshold?
> Watching a speedometer tells you how fast you're going, not how efficiently the human engine is
> working. Wouldn't reaching even roughly the same level of effort with one leg as with two legs
> require monitoring heart-rate or even more sophisticated matters, rather than any literally seat-of-the-
> pants impression?
I see you don't ride bike or at least are not aware of what one experiences in a flat TT. Once
underway, increasing speed is not an option if riding at max endurance speed. It's like getting
dropped by another rider, you can't do anything about it and you can watch your speedometer as
though its display were frozen as you try to stay on as the other rider increases his gap on you. It
is at that level that you can try this experiment and realize that it isn't muscles or ankling that
is holding you back.
> If I'm wrong, you can let us know how fast you went, how far, how long, and what your heart rate
> was--and how close it was to your normal cardiovascular limit, which is the crucial question.
I want you to try it so you can see this first hand. I first discovered this many years ago while
trying various things I had left over from my HS swim team, one of which was three kicks per arm
stroke/breath of air.
> It would also help if you explained why level ground is necessary to cardiovascular function, so
> that we could follow your logic. You may have sound reasons, but how does climbing resistance
> differ from wind drag at the limit of cardiovascular function?
Speed! Momentum! Stop asking so many questions that would be resolved if you rode a bicycle.
> My naive expectation is that someone like Phil Holman, who trains regularly and is interested in
> such things, would find himself unable to maintain the same speed near normal cardiovascular limit
> using only one leg for an hour, either on the road or on a trainer bristling with monitoring
> equipment that probably checks things other than my crude notions about heart rates.
Who ever suggested using one leg?
> But I've been wrong about bigger things, so I asked you what you meant. You didn't say anything
> new or try to clear things up.
Stop dodging.
> If I'm mistaken or have misunderstood you, perhaps it's because there's a difference between
> reaching a correct conclusion and being able to explain it.
I think if you review what I wrote that it is unambiguous and only willful misinterpretation or a
preconceived notion could make it unclear. What I wrote was terse and to the point in contrast to
the confusing runaround you have generated rather than try the simple experiment and commenting on
your results.
> Let's ask Phil or some equally monitor-mad cyclists to test your theory by pedaling for half an
> hour one day with two legs near their heart-rate limit and then for half an hour the next day with
> only one leg? I gather that one-legged drills are popular with such folk, and you've put forward
> the same theory in a one-legged version elsewhere on rec.bicycles.tech.
I have made this proposal often over the last 20 years on this forum and no one has found it
lacking. I'm sure that there are people who cannot master the count just as there are people who
cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. We have heard of these and sometimes I thing they are
here on wreck.bike.
> If they've already done the experiment, then we'll have the answer that much quicker. The same
> effort and the same speed near the same cardiovascular limit with a different number of legs would
> support your theory rather impressively. Otherwise, we'd have grounds to wonder whether other
> factors might be more significant.
What means "different number of legs"? There are two legs involved in this experiment, no
more no less.
> I'm interested and would be delighted to find out what really happens. Are you?
I know the answer but apparently not having a bicycle, you can't find out.
Jobst Brandt
[email protected]
