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.
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
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.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 ?"
edd said:Okay… lets gather some … some anecdotal evidence anyway.
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
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.
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.
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
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"
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 !
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
edd said:no it isn't
… I suspect there is a relationship
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
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.
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
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
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.
ric_stern/RST said:You misunderstand, .
ric_stern/RST said:It might be the final straw to cause the issue but I'm betting it's not the underlying cause.
.
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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.