Training to be a better climber



ric_stern/RST said:
i'm not sure there is any with this issue. There's knee injuries and i wonder if people misappropriate blame

ric


Okay… lets gather some … some anecdotal evidence anyway.
 
edd said:
So far no one has come to grips with the original question.

" Is doing hill repeats over winter for example " maintaining a steady load and gradually lifting ones cadence a worthwhile training template ?"
Yes. Whether you track the load through an increase in cadence (in a certain gear) or through a lower elapsed time, the rider is most certainly applying progressive load to the aerobic energy systems.

The hill selected should be one that requires 10-20 min to climb, if aerobic fitness is the primary goal. The same principle could be applied on the flats as well, using a timed ride over a known course of a few miles' distance.
 
edd said:
Okay… lets gather some … some anecdotal evidence anyway.

what's the point? Unless the injury is obvious (e.g. you fell over and smacked your knee on the road) you're not necessarily going to know how the injury occurred. The injury could manifest itself while doing something that may have nothing whatsoever to do with it (e.g., it took some period of time to hurt). Then, people think it's because of that, when it could have nothing to do with it.

ric
 
ric_stern/RST said:
what's the point? Unless the injury is obvious (e.g. you fell over and smacked your knee on the road) you're not necessarily going to know how the injury occurred. The injury could manifest itself while doing something that may have nothing whatsoever to do with it (e.g., it took some period of time to hurt). Then, people think it's because of that, when it could have nothing to do with it.

ric

that's a bit of a low bow your drawing …

if you twist your knee dancing ( what we think is dancing ) you kinda remember that you did it.

… and the point I guess is discussing it is better than sitting a lone in a dark room contemplating my toes, though that didn't seem to do LC any harm.
 
frenchyge said:
Yes. Whether you track the load through an increase in cadence (in a certain gear) or through a lower elapsed time, the rider is most certainly applying progressive load to the aerobic energy systems.

The hill selected should be one that requires 10-20 min to climb, if aerobic fitness is the primary goal. The same principle could be applied on the flats as well, using a timed ride over a known course of a few miles' distance.

Brilliant !

anyone think there is a better training template ?
 
edd said:
that's a bit of a low bow your drawing …

if you twist your knee dancing ( what we think is dancing ) you kinda remember that you did it.

… and the point I guess is discussing it is better than sitting a lone in a dark room contemplating my toes, though that didn't seem to do LC any harm.

it isn't a low bow. This is simply what i have been saying in previous posts that you may not know why something occurs unless it is obvious. You then wrongly attribute it.

It's like people do a good race and then find themself wearing a 'lucky' garment -- it could be anything that caused them to race well.

Or, another example: back when i was 11 i was running around up and down the road, when all of a sudden i got terrible pains in my knees and collapsed on the road. Was it the running that did this, or something else? I'm suggesting that it's easy to attribute this to running (or low cadence or something else), when the issue could be multifactorial and may not be obvious.

It's only if the injury that occurs is serious and further investigation is carried out to ascertain the exact issue that you may discover the true reason, else you could attribute it to something else (e.g., running, low cadence, whatever).

Ric
 
ric_stern/RST said:
it isn't a low bow. This is simply what i have been saying in previous posts that you may not know why something occurs unless it is obvious. You then wrongly attribute it.

It's like people do a good race and then find themself wearing a 'lucky' garment -- it could be anything that caused them to race well.

Or, another example: back when i was 11 i was running around up and down the road, when all of a sudden i got terrible pains in my knees and collapsed on the road. Was it the running that did this, or something else? I'm suggesting that it's easy to attribute this to running (or low cadence or something else), when the issue could be multifactorial and may not be obvious.

It's only if the injury that occurs is serious and further investigation is carried out to ascertain the exact issue that you may discover the true reason, else you could attribute it to something else (e.g., running, low cadence, whatever).

Ric

Does it really matter what started a chronic knee condition ?

The suggestion was that high loads and low cadence does cause knee pain in some cyclists, possibly a lot of cyclists. whether pedaling the bike actually caused the chronic condition in the first place seems a little arbitrary.
 
ric_stern/RST said:
while i've never checked with any data, i can't see how low cadences could be damaging to your knees. the forces involved in cycling are fairly low to moderate (such that even at low cadence it doesn't build strength). I think it's highly unlikely it would damage joints, even in people with damaged joints. The highest forces are when you start off.

I know everyone, including national governing bodies make you pedal lower gears when you're younger, but my feeling is that this is an old wives tale.

Ric "i have horribly damaged knees, but pedalling at low cadence hasn't made it worse"

Just revisiting an earlier comment … " you can't see how low cadences could be damaging to your knees. the forces involved in cycling are fairly low to moderate"

Dam … logic just won't let happen, is that it ?

Then how come typists get RSI the effort to type on computer keys is a very low force indeed, yet they get injured.

I can speculate on why, but logic just tells me I'm kidding myself if I think I have a real grasp on why. Logic just tells me that **** just happens !
 
edd said:
Just revisiting an earlier comment … " you can't see how low cadences could be damaging to your knees. the forces involved in cycling are fairly low to moderate"

Dam … logic just won't let happen, is that it ?

Then how come typists get RSI the effort to type on computer keys is a very low force indeed, yet they get injured.

I can speculate on why, but logic just tells me I'm kidding myself if I think I have a real grasp on why. Logic just tells me that **** just happens !

RSI is different to a low cadence issue damaging knees. No one has said that you don't/can't get injured pedalling (or typing) but trying to find the underlying cause is the point i was making. Self-reporting the correct cause of an injury is the difficult bit.

ric
 
ric_stern/RST said:
RSI is different to a low cadence issue damaging knees. No one has said that you don't/can't get injured pedalling (or typing) but trying to find the underlying cause is the point i was making. Self-reporting the correct cause of an injury is the difficult bit.

ric

no it isn't

… I suspect there is a relationship
 
I have an example :)

The last time I tore muscle fascia in my quad it happened while doing squats, but was it the squats that initiated the tear?

It is my belief, though not completely sure, that the tear was initiated the day before doing squats during a session of stretching. There was a very slight discomfort after stretching that I did not consider to be anything significant, but the next day while warming up for the heavy sets of squats it tore on a relatively light weight.

It is my belief the stretching was the culprit, however, one would say that squats was the cause because that is when the tear became significant enough to put me in rehab. It was not squats. It was the stretching.

tendonitis often can be triggered by some small event that one did not recognize, but the effects that are felt later are often attributed to the activity being performed. If I bump my elbow on a door frame and pay no attention to it and yet a slight bit of inflammation forms one can later attribute the pain to a repetitive use injury during training. If ice was applied at the time of the bump the initial injury may heal more quickly by the relief of inflammation at the injury site, but most of us discount such small issues that we do not tend to them.

Can the repetitive use injury be avoided by using correct form and technique?
If not then why don't all cyclists suffer from knee injuries?

When ever my knees feel tender while cycling it is usually because I strained them doing some other activity with improper form or I did something wrong on the bike like hyperextend by accident.
 
Whenever I've had knee discomfort or pain from high gear/low cadence riding, it has always seemed to come as a result of kicking forward at the top of the stroke under the moderate torque of pushing a larger gear. At the top of the stroke, where the knee is fully bent, the forces are applied in a different direction than is normal for that joint and the distance between the bones is at the minimum. This is more of a problem for me on the trainer, where I tend to kick forward more at the top of the stroke. If my cadence drops on a hill, I tend to mash downward harder and that doesn't bother my knees.

As Ric says, the forces involved in pedalling are pretty small, but I think the direction and repetition of those forces can stress the joints in ways that they are not accustomed to. From my experience, I would recommend against doing low cadence work on a stationary trainer or spin bike.
 
ric_stern/RST said:
no it isn't what?

RSI isn't different to low cadence cycling? In which case the logical result of that, is that all cycling causes knee injury.

or, are you saying typing injuries are related to knee injuries?

ric

I'm saying that the forces used in low cadence high force pedaling are possibly enough to cause injury in some individuals who for whatever reason have a predisposition to knee injury or have a preexisting chronic knee condition.

And that you dismissing the connection based on quackery ( your experiences ) is proof enough for me that there is a connection ( more quackery ) my experiences.

and yes typing can cause knee injuries, very rare, I admit but i'm sure there is a case study out there.
 
edd said:
I'm saying that the forces used in low cadence high force pedaling are possibly enough to cause injury in some individuals who for whatever reason have a predisposition to knee injury or have a preexisting chronic knee condition.

And that you dismissing the connection based on quackery ( your experiences ) is proof enough for me that there is a connection ( more quackery ) my experiences.

and yes typing can cause knee injuries, very rare, I admit but i'm sure there is a case study out there.

and, i'm saying the forces are low: on a 12% hill i went up today at 11 km/hr (and ~ 300 W) in 39 x 25 i was at about 55 revs/min. Average force between both legs is about 30 kg. So, yeah, if that sort of force causes knee injuries then fine, *but* then most people weigh more than 30 kg so the force would be higher just standing up and more likely to cause injury then.

ric
 
ric_stern/RST said:
RSI is different to a low cadence issue damaging knees. No one has said that you don't/can't get injured pedalling (or typing) but trying to find the underlying cause is the point i was making. Self-reporting the correct cause of an injury is the difficult bit.

ric


I believe the knee problem comes from the fact that vertical pedal pressure is used to power the pedals when the body (knee/hip) is not in a suitable position for this task. This increases the strain on the knees in the same way as it puts the lower back under varying degrees of continuous strain. Some lower backs can cope but for those that can't, constant pain is the result. It's possible the same applies to knees if they are not in perfect condition. Smooth linear high gear pedalling at a 45 degree angle is the answer Ric. You can apply your own total bodyweight pressure to a pedal when riding out of the saddle but can you do it in the seated position, you can with the linear style. Again I ask the question, why does the expert physiologist A.C. steer clear of all topics on pedalling related pain and injury.
 
If pedaling at low cadence causes knee pain, then don't pedal at low cadences. If you do experience pain with low cadences, then there is the potential that damage could be done (even at low forces) since pain is our body's warning system that something is potentially wrong and harmful. Whether initial knee problems can be caused by excessive pedaling at low cadences in the first place is less important in my opinion but I suspect it could in some people.
 
ric_stern/RST said:
and, i'm saying the forces are low: on a 12% hill i went up today at 11 km/hr (and ~ 300 W) in 39 x 25 i was at about 55 revs/min. Average force between both legs is about 30 kg. So, yeah, if that sort of force causes knee injuries then fine, *but* then most people weigh more than 30 kg so the force would be higher just standing up and more likely to cause injury then.

ric


And I'm saying that doesn't matter how low the forces are, **** happens to some people, often for no good reason. Doesn't mean we have our facts wrong. Not at all. It means that our power of deduction, our ability to reason things out, our logic, is only a capacity we have to help us survive. It is not one of the laws of nature.
 
edd said:
And I'm saying that doesn't matter how low the forces are, **** happens to some people, often for no good reason. Doesn't mean we have our facts wrong. Not at all. It means that our power of deduction, our ability to reason things out, our logic, is only a capacity we have to help us survive. It is not one of the laws of nature.

You misunderstand, so i'll say it once last time as simply as i can: i'm not saying that some people don't get knee injuries cycling, and i'm not saying that some of those people don't get injured while riding at low cadence, because i suspect that some do. However, attributing the injury to the low cadence pedalling when there is some other cause of the injury is the point i'm making. It might be the final straw to cause the issue but i'm betting it's not the underlying cause.

Example: you fall down stairs one day and tumble all the way down, banging your leg. You get up and apart from the shock seem relatively okay. a couple of days later while practising the high jump your leg breaks. Do you attribute the break to falling down the stairs (when it most likely happened or was just short of a full break) or the high jump practice? If you conclude the latter then the logical thing to do (after the break heals) is to never do high jumping again, when in reality it's the falling down the stairs that is the thing to avoid.
 
ric_stern/RST said:
You misunderstand, .

No I understand.

People fall off bicycles and hurt themselves. yet I'd be wrong to assert that riding a bicycle causes one to fall down. However not riding bicycle will prevent one from falling off a bicycle.
-vs-
People hurt themselves pedaling at high load low cadence. yet I'd be wrong to assert that riding at high load low cadence causes one to hurt themselves. However not riding at high load low cadence may prevent one from hurting themselves

ric_stern/RST said:
It might be the final straw to cause the issue but I'm betting it's not the underlying cause.
.

Okay I fine with that. No argument here

ric_stern/RST said:
Example: you fall down stairs one day and tumble all the way down, banging your leg. You get up and apart from the shock seem relatively okay. a couple of days later while practising the high jump your leg breaks. Do you attribute the break to falling down the stairs (when it most likely happened or was just short of a full break) or the high jump practice? If you conclude the latter then the logical thing to do (after the break heals) is to never do high jumping again, when in reality it's the falling down the stairs that is the thing to avoid.

But this deduction you have made, that it must be something else is the issue I'm taking you to task on. YOU COULD BE RIGHT ! But just because you can logically deduce a thing does not necessarily make it so !


lets move on
 

Similar threads