If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Gene Goldenfeld wrote: wrote: The terrain I ski in has short steep hills which are 1-3 minutes of max hr way over anaerobic threshold, with about 2-3 minutes of recovery before the next hill. In particular when skating I try to have complete leg extension. The amount of force generated by my legs is way more per extension than what I do while cycling, so I guess it makes sense that that type of exercise would encourage bulk I didn't see from biking. Joseph, you might consider not going max on the hills so that you can use the area in between to maintain speed rather than recovery. There's a lot to be gained overall that way. Gene I should probably try some other areas that are not quite so up and down. Where I go regularly has essentially no flat sections, and no gradual inclines. So the recovery portions I'm talking about are a little double-poling over the crest, then a descent. The other option is a golf course nearby, but that is flat as a pancake and is full of dog-do! My inexperience on more moderate terrain is going to cause problems for me with pacing myself on long tours at other places. I suppose I should try some more variation in terrain to get that experience. Joseph |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Cole wrote: Gene, a question; more than carrying the additional weight up the hill, isn't the issue oxygenating the additional muscle mass that larger athlete has to deal with in the hills? I remember seeing a chart somewhere that really broke it down. It seems that it is a mathematical certainty that the smaller athlete will prevail in the hills. Have you heard this thesis? In animals in general, the bigger you are the more of your strength you need just to "hold yourself up" and move your mass. As an animal increases in linear size, the volume and therefore mass increase as the cube, whereas muscle strength (directly related to cross-sectional area of muscle) increases as the square of the linear size. This is why elephants need such large legs, and don't look like directly scaled-up mice. So typically, a "smaller" skiier is usually going to have a better power to weight ratio, and for a given energy expenditure will produce more forward motion up the hill and use less energy simply fighting gravity's pull on their mass back down the hill. Whether that translates into any significant difference in real life is another matter. I think it does translate into a significant difference in real life, but only really at the elite level. At the elite level everyone is essentially as fit as a human can be, so other factors become more important in differentiating peoples' performance. At the recreational level, differences in condition and the amount of training can certainly make a much bigger difference. Weight may not be as important as in cycling because the climbs are not as long, if the Olympic courses are anything to go by. Cycling seems to have a broader range of terrain and thus has more specialization for different body types, and also has a more rigid "template" for what is required to be a top all-rounder. You bring up a good point about the scaling of animals. This affects the aerobic capacity, and thus a persons capabilities on long climbs which must be done below anaerobic threshold. There definitely lighter/smaller is better. On shorter climbs where everyone has to stomp up them anaerobically, the advantage isn't so great anymore. Skiing is lots of fun (among other reasons!) for me because I feel my upper body helps my speed, while with cycling it just gets in the way. And of course, no cars! Joseph |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
FWIW, I have the same thing happen each year when I begin rollerskiing.
Cycling basically neglects most of the muscles above the waste and I go from 210 to 220-225 each season (I'm 6-6"). I'm wondering how much of the gain is from increased bone density; there's been some recent research on increased bone density from weight-bearing exercise, but I haven't seen anything about how much weight that would be. I do feel more buff now than in August... chris See you at the Birkie? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
BeeCharmer wrote: FWIW, I have the same thing happen each year when I begin rollerskiing. Cycling basically neglects most of the muscles above the waste and I go from 210 to 220-225 each season (I'm 6-6"). I'm wondering how much of the gain is from increased bone density; there's been some recent research on increased bone density from weight-bearing exercise, but I haven't seen anything about how much weight that would be. I do feel more buff now than in August... chris See you at the Birkie? I too am certainly more buff than in August if the attentions of my wife is anything to go by! It's good to hear that significant weight gain from the transfer from biking to skiing is not strange. Perhaps this year my 20+ pounds are a bit extreme and next year it will be closer to your 10-15 if some of my upper body development sticks around through the next cycling season. I've heard things about bone density from cycling, but I always assumed that was a long term thing, not seasonal. No Birkie for me, but I'm signed up for my first Birkebeinerrennet March 18! They closed registration at 11,000 participants, but there are still start numbers available for foreigners, come join the fun! Joseph |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Randy writes:
Randy An important, or NOT so important factor to this equation is that Randy muscle, whether lean or bulk, weighs more than fat. This happens to me Muscle is denser --- a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle Randy when off-season, I lift weights. The theory is for MOST endeavors the Randy added strength translates into more power, and of course, in the base Randy metabolism rate muscles burns far more calories than fat does. Randy I probably added to the confusion with the above. Randy Come to think of it, I'M confused now. The added muscle must be specific to the activity to be useful in that activity. Chest, arm and back muscle does not help a long distance runner or biker. Randy wrote: Hi, At the end of November when I put my bike in the garage for the winter I weighed 93kg. I have been skiing about 8-12 hours per week (50/50 classic-skate) and which is at least 3-4 hours more on average than I did on the bike. I also think my skiing is more intense than the bike riding was (at least during the fall). I haven't changed my diet in any way. My weight is now 103kg. I notice that certain parts of my quads are much larger now, and my triceps too, and I suspect other places too. Fat is hard to judge, but I think it is pretty constant. Is it common for skiing to encourage the development of bulk muscles? I for some reason always assumed it would be slimming like running. I certainly didn't expect to gain 10kg in 3 months! It dosen't bother me, I am just curious about the development. Joseph -- Andrew Hall (Now reading Usenet in rec.skiing.nordic...) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
With warmer/hot temperatures the body swells and weight goes up. A
national coach said 4-5 kg is pretty normal. Gene "BeeCharmer" wrote: FWIW, I have the same thing happen each year when I begin rollerskiing. Cycling basically neglects most of the muscles above the waste and I go from 210 to 220-225 each season (I'm 6-6"). I'm wondering how much of the gain is from increased bone density; there's been some recent research on increased bone density from weight-bearing exercise, but I haven't seen anything about how much weight that would be. I do feel more buff now than in August... chris See you at the Birkie? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Here is a link that I think relates.
http://home.hia.no/~stephens/size&end.htm and also; http://home.hia.no/~stephens/skiphysi.htm More questions than answers? /john |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
jgs wrote: Here is a link that I think relates. http://home.hia.no/~stephens/size&end.htm and also; http://home.hia.no/~stephens/skiphysi.htm More questions than answers? /john That was very informative. Particularly the part about LT and it's relative irrelevance to XC compared to other endurance sports. This seems to make sense to me based on my observations of my own stomping up hills. The part about efficiency not being decisive is also interesting. I guess a certain amount of "wheel-spin" is ok as long as you have the power to put down. Here is a link that discusses the scaling issue a bit mo http://www.cranklength.info/scaling.htm All in all, all this info and people's observations are getting me excited about my prospects as a skier. I had essentially written myself off, and was only thinking of skiing as a way to stay in shape for cycling. I thought my size was insurmountable. Due to my size, my cycling is very specialized, but perhaps I can be a much better all-round skier than cyclist. It may just be that "getting the pin" at races like Birkebeiner are a possibility, while the same level of performance on a bike is a distant dream. This last week has been an eye-opener for me. New, proper equipment has made me realize I was going much slower than I should have been. And I did a short club race on Wednsday (my first ever) and found out I am not as slow as I thought. With the new gear I have noticed that I rarely get passed by folks anymore too! This mixed with the realization that my size isn't a show-stopper is a real invitation to give it my all. Joseph |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
These posts are from 1996 yet still seem to hold up well for the most
part. Peter H might want to take a look at the second article in light of the recent discussion about the physiology of skating and striding. There have been a few changes in technique since then that might modify his comments here or there. I also suspect that stride cadence - and not just stride length - has become a differentiating variable at at least the top levels. For example, watch Becky Scott and Julia Tchepalova relative to others on the climbs at Canmore. This may be a function of the trend in recent years toward steeper climbs on repeating shorter loops (done for cutting costs and easier TV access and spectator viewing). A google search for Stephen Seiler turns up a few interesting pieces, including the male-female differences article in running. His co-author on the latter, Steve Sailer, a political conservative, also wrote an insightful piece just after Annika played the Colonial in 2003 (he had predicted correctly how much she would miss the cut by). Gene "jgs" wrote: Here is a link that I think relates. http://home.hia.no/~stephens/size&end.htm and also; http://home.hia.no/~stephens/skiphysi.htm More questions than answers? /john |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
video make-over | Ken Roberts | Nordic Skiing | 53 | May 2nd 05 02:35 AM |
Ski Flex and Weight Loss | Daniel Vargo | Nordic Skiing | 3 | February 3rd 05 10:55 PM |
Ole-Einar wants to put on some weight | Anders Lustig | Nordic Skiing | 7 | January 29th 04 04:10 PM |
Ski Length vs. Weight | Edgar | Backcountry Skiing | 1 | December 4th 03 04:16 PM |
Which weight training, or exercise, helps the muscles that flexes the legs? | DJ Kim | Alpine Skiing | 9 | August 21st 03 06:02 AM |