what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

I say aerobic capacity.


Why?


Well, you need leg strength to make turns, but you need aerobic capacity to
breathe, right?


If you don't have leg strength, then you can't turn at high speeds, but if
you can't breathe, then you'd be dead.


Dead people are definitely slower than people who lack leg strength.
Therefore, I submit that aerobic capacity is more important in the downhill.






Aaron Daniel Gringioni



ps. I used to hang out with some skiers once, therefore I know what I'm
talking about

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

In news:Kurgan Gringioni
typed:
I say aerobic capacity.


Why?


Well, you need leg strength to make turns, but you need aerobic
capacity to breathe, right?


If you don't have leg strength, then you can't turn at high speeds,
but if you can't breathe, then you'd be dead.


Dead people are definitely slower than people who lack leg strength.
Therefore, I submit that aerobic capacity is more important in the
downhill.






Aaron Daniel Gringioni



ps. I used to hang out with some skiers once, therefore I know what
I'm talking about

Looks like this could make the summer quite amusing. ;-)
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.
Rec.Skiing.Alpine.Moderated is up and working! Join in!

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in
et:

I say aerobic capacity.

Why?

Well, you need leg strength to make turns, but you need aerobic
capacity to breathe, right?


If you don't have leg strength, then you can't turn at high speeds,
but if you can't breathe, then you'd be dead.


Dead people are definitely slower than people who lack leg strength.
Therefore, I submit that aerobic capacity is more important in the
downhill.

Aaron Daniel Gringioni

ps. I used to hang out with some skiers once, therefore I know what
I'm talking about

Troll-O-Meter
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
^
|

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

your theory is flawed somewhat, dead people in the right vehicle and terrain
are faster than alive in the same terrain.

example, dead person inside a box off Yosemite is faster than one alive. the
alive person would fight for the first few seconds before being thrown off.
the dead person is already traveling at 32.2ft/s /s thus has a 60-90 ft
advantage the alive person would never regain. then once they reach their
destination the aerobic wouldn't matter due to the longs being
collapsed.....



"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in
message et...
Dead people are definitely slower than people who lack leg strength.
Therefore, I submit that aerobic capacity is more important in the
downhill.




Aaron Daniel Gringioni


ps. I used to hang out with some skiers once, therefore I know what I'm
talking about

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

In article , Kurgan
Gringioni wrote:

I say aerobic capacity.


Why?


Well, you need leg strength to make turns, but you need aerobic capacity to
breathe, right?


If you don't have leg strength, then you can't turn at high speeds, but if
you can't breathe, then you'd be dead.


Dead people are definitely slower than people who lack leg strength.
Therefore, I submit that aerobic capacity is more important in the downhill.

Downhill requires strong legs to maintain a tuck, do the pre-jumps, and
absorb the bumps. Lots of squats done by the best. In a tight tuck
there isn't much room to breathe anyway. Alpine skiing is a sport where
one can be a fattie before they are a master.

-WG

Real skiers don't ride chairlifts.

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote
in message et...
I say aerobic capacity.

Why?

Well, you need leg strength to make turns, but you need aerobic
capacity to
breathe, right?

If you don't have leg strength, then you can't turn at high speeds,
but if
you can't breathe, then you'd be dead.

Dead people are definitely slower than people who lack leg
strength.
Therefore, I submit that aerobic capacity is more important in the
downhill.

Well, you're very close, but the actual answer is *anaerobic*
capacity.
You see at the speeds most downhillers are moving, when they open
their
mouth to breathe, the venturi effect draws all the air out of their
pleural cavity. The better ones use this little known fact to their
advantage by collapsing their rib cages, and thus decreasing their
cross-sectional area, enabling them to go faster due to the drag
reduction.

As you might imagine, not breathing at all during two minutes of very
high exertion puts quite a strain on the old bloodstream so most
downhiller take Geritol every day.


ps. I used to hang out with some skiers once, therefore I know what
I'm
talking about

You are clearly a very knowledgable person with a PhD. What do your
do
your dissertation on? I did mine on Biomechanical Implications of
Camel
Toe.

-P

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobiccapacity?
 

JTN wrote:

your theory is flawed somewhat, dead people in the right vehicle and terrain
are faster than alive in the same terrain.

example, dead person inside a box off Yosemite is faster than one alive. the
alive person would fight for the first few seconds before being thrown off.
the dead person is already traveling at 32.2ft/s /s thus has a 60-90 ft
advantage the alive person would never regain. then once they reach their
destination the aerobic wouldn't matter due to the longs being
collapsed.....

But you forget aerodynamic considerations. The dead person could not tuck
into an efficient shape (which a box certainly is not) and wind resistance
would slow him down. If the distance to drop is short, this probably
wouldn't matter much.

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:

Dead people are definitely slower than people who lack leg strength.
Therefore, I submit that aerobic capacity is more important in the
downhill.

Aaron Daniel Gringioni

ps. I used to hang out with some skiers once, therefore I know what I'm
talking about

It is good that you are willing to learn, grasshopper, but one must travel
the path to knowledge one step at a time.

--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I never understood why anyone would go to the trouble to write a novel
when you can just go out and buy one for a few bucks." -- lpogoda

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:54:07 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:


"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
JTN wrote:

your theory is flawed somewhat, dead people in the right vehicle and
terrain
are faster than alive in the same terrain.

example, dead person inside a box off Yosemite is faster than one alive.
the
alive person would fight for the first few seconds before being thrown
off.
the dead person is already traveling at 32.2ft/s /s thus has a 60-90 ft
advantage the alive person would never regain. then once they reach
their
destination the aerobic wouldn't matter due to the longs being
collapsed.....

But you forget aerodynamic considerations. The dead person could not tuck
into an efficient shape (which a box certainly is not) and wind resistance
would slow him down. If the distance to drop is short, this probably
wouldn't matter much.

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:

Dead people are definitely slower than people who lack leg strength.
Therefore, I submit that aerobic capacity is more important in the
downhill.

Aaron Daniel Gringioni

ps. I used to hang out with some skiers once, therefore I know what
I'm
talking about

It is good that you are willing to learn, grasshopper, but one must travel
the path to knowledge one step at a time.



Uhh . . . the skiers I used to hang with were really, really good. They were
about equivalent to Cat 3 bike racers and triathletes and stuff.

Therefore, I know what I'm talking about.

Bully for you. Now you should try hanging out with some really,
really good (and heavily credentialed) Usenet posters.

bw

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

I say the most important thing in a downhill is a really low IQ.

"Mike Speegle" wrote in message
...
In news:Kurgan Gringioni
typed:
I say aerobic capacity.


Why?


Well, you need leg strength to make turns, but you need aerobic
capacity to breathe, right?


If you don't have leg strength, then you can't turn at high
speeds,
but if you can't breathe, then you'd be dead.


Dead people are definitely slower than people who lack leg
strength.
Therefore, I submit that aerobic capacity is more important in the
downhill.






Aaron Daniel Gringioni



ps. I used to hang out with some skiers once, therefore I know
what
I'm talking about

Looks like this could make the summer quite amusing. ;-)
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.
Rec.Skiing.Alpine.Moderated is up and working! Join in!

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

In news:Tom Kunich typed:
I say the most important thing in a downhill is a really low IQ.

*BIG* balls. Tiny brain also helps. ;-)
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.
Rec.Skiing.Alpine.Moderated is up and working! Join in!

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

In news:Raptor typed:
Mike Speegle wrote:
In news:Tom Kunich typed:

I say the most important thing in a downhill is a really low IQ.


*BIG* balls. Tiny brain also helps. ;-)

Guts-wise, it's little different from bombing a canyon or col road at
85+kph, though I haven't yet been able to get myself to tuck down the
start of the Grizzly course. Maybe with a groomed, closed course,
which I'm never prone to get... (If someone were to go through the
trouble of closing the course for little old me, I'd swallow my fear
and do the sucker.)

All it really takes is a love for speed, g-forces and strong legs (and
the necessary ski skill).

...and the sound of the wind as you accelerate. Really cool. ;-)
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.
Rec.Skiing.Alpine.Moderated is up and working! Join in!

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

Uhh . . . the skiers I used to hang with were really, really good.
They were about equivalent to Cat 3 bike racers and triathletes and
stuff.

Cool, I'm always looking for new ski partners. How about you join me for a
run down one of my favourite couloirs?
Perhaps I could even pick up a few pointers.

Therefore, I know what I'm talking about.

I'm betting on it or more to the point, you'll be betting your life on it.

Ciao,
Armin

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

"Armin" wrote in message
...
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

Uhh . . . the skiers I used to hang with were really, really good.
They were about equivalent to Cat 3 bike racers and triathletes and
stuff.

Cool, I'm always looking for new ski partners. How about you join me for a
run down one of my favourite couloirs?
Perhaps I could even pick up a few pointers.

Therefore, I know what I'm talking about.

I'm betting on it or more to the point, you'll be betting your life on it.



I've seen some of those couliers in magazines. Overblown. My studly Cat 3
buddies would leave you in their dust.

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
"Armin" wrote in message
...
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

Uhh . . . the skiers I used to hang with were really, really good.
They were about equivalent to Cat 3 bike racers and triathletes and
stuff.

Cool, I'm always looking for new ski partners. How about you join me
for a run down one of my favourite couloirs?
Perhaps I could even pick up a few pointers.

Therefore, I know what I'm talking about.

I'm betting on it or more to the point, you'll be betting your life
on it.


I've seen some of those couliers in magazines. Overblown. My studly
Cat 3 buddies would leave you in their dust.

I once saw some pictures of the TdF.
Looked like a walk in the park. What they thought was steep wouldn't even
make a good beginners hill at the local ski resort.
I'm sure any decent skier could leave those gay looking guys wearing day-glo
tights in their dust.

After all, pictures never lie.

Armin

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

Dead people are definitely slower than people who lack leg strength.
Therefore, I submit that aerobic capacity is more important in the downhill.

As has been pointed out, dead people *can* have an advantage in a
straight downhill. Even more if rigor mortis has set in.

As a related data point, we submit results from the Queenstown winter
festival where individuals on cardboard boxes beat mountain bikers on
the downhill slopes.

So I would express the opinion that a deceased individual on a cardboard
box could easily outclass an individual with strong legs in a downhill
event. It may however, be difficult to acquire ethical approval for a
fully-detailed research study.

One of the mountainbikers was also heard to remark that the lack of snow
made his event too difficult. I think that is where both rbr and rsa
can find agreement.

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

"Armin" wrote in message
...
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
"Armin" wrote in message
...
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

Uhh . . . the skiers I used to hang with were really, really good.
They were about equivalent to Cat 3 bike racers and triathletes and
stuff.

Cool, I'm always looking for new ski partners. How about you join me
for a run down one of my favourite couloirs?
Perhaps I could even pick up a few pointers.

Therefore, I know what I'm talking about.

I'm betting on it or more to the point, you'll be betting your life
on it.


I've seen some of those couliers in magazines. Overblown. My studly
Cat 3 buddies would leave you in their dust.

I once saw some pictures of the TdF.
Looked like a walk in the park. What they thought was steep wouldn't even
make a good beginners hill at the local ski resort.
I'm sure any decent skier could leave those gay looking guys wearing
day-glo
tights in their dust.



I agree.

The Sperminator will WIN THE PROLOGUE TOMMORROW!!!!!!





You heard it here first.




Kurgan Gringioni
downhill Xpert

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

In message , Kurgan
Gringioni writes

ps. I used to hang out with some skiers once, therefore I know what
I'm
talking about

It is good that you are willing to learn, grasshopper, but one must travel
the path to knowledge one step at a time.



Uhh . . . the skiers I used to hang with were really, really good. They were
about equivalent to Cat 3 bike racers and triathletes and stuff.

Therefore, I know what I'm talking about.


When Grasshopper hang around this ng for a little while, discover that
really, really good skiers talk just as much total b*llocks as any other
kind of poster...
--
Sue ]:(:)

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobiccapacity?
 

why are you skiers still crossposting here?

Sue wrote:

In message , Kurgan
Gringioni writes


ps. I used to hang out with some skiers once, therefore I know what

I'm

talking about

It is good that you are willing to learn, grasshopper, but one must
travel
the path to knowledge one step at a time.




Uhh . . . the skiers I used to hang with were really, really good.
They were
about equivalent to Cat 3 bike racers and triathletes and stuff.

Therefore, I know what I'm talking about.


When Grasshopper hang around this ng for a little while, discover that
really, really good skiers talk just as much total b*llocks as any other
kind of poster...

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:52:14 -0600, Fred Marx
wrote:

why are you skiers still crossposting here?


Hadn't reached the limit. And top-posters ain't keepers.

bw

Sue wrote:

In message , Kurgan
Gringioni writes


ps. I used to hang out with some skiers once, therefore I know what

I'm

talking about

It is good that you are willing to learn, grasshopper, but one must
travel
the path to knowledge one step at a time.




Uhh . . . the skiers I used to hang with were really, really good.
They were
about equivalent to Cat 3 bike racers and triathletes and stuff.

Therefore, I know what I'm talking about.


When Grasshopper hang around this ng for a little while, discover that
really, really good skiers talk just as much total b*llocks as any other
kind of poster...

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

In message , Fred Marx
writes
why are you skiers still crossposting here?

I thought the OP was one of yours since I'd never seen him before, but I
see he's now claiming to be a skier. Sorry about that - we'll feed him
to the trolls over here.
--
Sue ]|(:)

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

I know you are trolling but I want to provide you with a little perspective.

Some of those Tour de France stages through the mountains are the equivalent
of driving from Sacramento, California up and over the Sierras, down to Lake
Tahoe and then finishing at the top of Heavenly (or pick just about any
other ski resort in the Lake Tahoe area). That would be similar to the Alps.

The roads in the Pyrenees are much steeper.I figure you skiers have either
been there or are familiar with the terrain I am talking about.

"Armin" wrote in message
...
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
"Armin" wrote in message
...
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

Uhh . . . the skiers I used to hang with were really, really good.
They were about equivalent to Cat 3 bike racers and triathletes and
stuff.

Cool, I'm always looking for new ski partners. How about you join me
for a run down one of my favourite couloirs?
Perhaps I could even pick up a few pointers.

Therefore, I know what I'm talking about.

I'm betting on it or more to the point, you'll be betting your life
on it.


I've seen some of those couliers in magazines. Overblown. My studly
Cat 3 buddies would leave you in their dust.

I once saw some pictures of the TdF.
Looked like a walk in the park. What they thought was steep wouldn't even
make a good beginners hill at the local ski resort.
I'm sure any decent skier could leave those gay looking guys wearing
day-glo
tights in their dust.

After all, pictures never lie.

Armin

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

In article , Nick Burns
wrote:

I know you are trolling but I want to provide you with a little perspective.

Some of those Tour de France stages through the mountains are the equivalent
of driving from Sacramento, California up and over the Sierras, down to Lake
Tahoe and then finishing at the top of Heavenly (or pick just about any
other ski resort in the Lake Tahoe area). That would be similar to the Alps.

Except the Sierras are at higher altitude. Some of the paved roads
going over the Sierra mountain passes are at 7000-9000 feet elevation,
but there are no rideable roads to the top of the ski resorts around
Lake Tahoe.

-WG

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobiccapacity?
 

I think a US tour should have a finish on the summit of Pike's Peak.

Nick Burns wrote:

It depends on which roads are compared to which stages. I need to look it
up, but the Tourmalet is around 7000 feet while some of the highways reach
about 6000 feet. I know there are no roads in the Ski resorts. I still think
it provides perspective for people that know so very little about pro
cycling races and its terrain.

"warren" wrote in message
...
In article , Nick Burns
wrote:

I know you are trolling but I want to provide you with a little
perspective.

Some of those Tour de France stages through the mountains are the
equivalent
of driving from Sacramento, California up and over the Sierras, down to
Lake
Tahoe and then finishing at the top of Heavenly (or pick just about any
other ski resort in the Lake Tahoe area). That would be similar to the
Alps.

Except the Sierras are at higher altitude. Some of the paved roads
going over the Sierra mountain passes are at 7000-9000 feet elevation,
but there are no rideable roads to the top of the ski resorts around
Lake Tahoe.

-WG

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

"David Ryan" wrote in message
...
I think a US tour should have a finish on the summit of Pike's Peak.

Didn't the Red Zinger go over Loveland Pass, which is just under 12,000 ft?

Nick Burns wrote:

It depends on which roads are compared to which stages. I need to look
it
up, but the Tourmalet is around 7000 feet while some of the highways
reach
about 6000 feet. I know there are no roads in the Ski resorts. I still
think
it provides perspective for people that know so very little about pro
cycling races and its terrain.

"warren" wrote in message
...
In article , Nick Burns
wrote:

I know you are trolling but I want to provide you with a little
perspective.

Some of those Tour de France stages through the mountains are the
equivalent
of driving from Sacramento, California up and over the Sierras, down
to
Lake
Tahoe and then finishing at the top of Heavenly (or pick just about
any
other ski resort in the Lake Tahoe area). That would be similar to
the
Alps.

Except the Sierras are at higher altitude. Some of the paved roads
going over the Sierra mountain passes are at 7000-9000 feet elevation,
but there are no rideable roads to the top of the ski resorts around
Lake Tahoe.

-WG

what is more important in downhill, leg strength or aerobic capacity?
 

Not quite the same elevation as the highest US mountains or the mountains I
described? The Tourmalet is a regular feature in the Tour and it rises to
6995'. There are a few others that go up almost as high. Roads in the Alps
typically average no more than 7%. Any roads with regular car traffic try to
keep the same or less pitch.


"Raptor" wrote in message ...
Nick Burns wrote:
I know you are trolling but I want to provide you with a little
perspective.

Some of those Tour de France stages through the mountains are the
equivalent
of driving from Sacramento, California up and over the Sierras, down to
Lake
Tahoe and then finishing at the top of Heavenly (or pick just about any
other ski resort in the Lake Tahoe area). That would be similar to the
Alps.

The roads in the Pyrenees are much steeper.I figure you skiers have
either
been there or are familiar with the terrain I am talking about.

But the European mountains don't have quite the same elevation. And,
based on the course statistics, it's not hard at all to find similarly
steep roads in the States, except for the occasional
beat-the-riders-over-the-head climbs like the Angliru and Koppeburg.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.