A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Nordic Skiing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Weight gain from XC?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 19th 06, 06:37 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There was a recent study that shows that readers mistake the tone of
50% of emails. To wit, Joseph, I think you better read again: the word
or idea of irrelevance of LT in x-c skiing, relative or absolute, was
not used by Seiler. His point was that it doesn't set the speed limit
for elite/WC x-c athletes, as it does in other sports. But note that he
is not talking about you or me. His one reference to one existant study
of the latter group notes that lactate levels of untrained competitors
were not measured during the race.

That said, another article on his site about Norwegian endurance
training methods - http://home.hia.no/~stephens/skiing.htm - proposes a
training method that deemphasizes level 4 in favor of 1 and 5 (L5=10%
of all training). Other recent documents from the Norwegian Olympic
Committee (distributed thru fasterskier.com's sub) suggest that this is
not the accepted approach or breakdown of training zones anymore.

Gene

wrote:


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

Ads
  #22  
Old February 19th 06, 06:48 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I gained 7-8 pounds over what i weighed last summer now ... and working out
WAY more.
Summer 4-6 hours/week
Winter 6-9 hours/week.

weird.
JK


  #23  
Old February 19th 06, 08:54 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Gene Goldenfeld wrote:
There was a recent study that shows that readers mistake the tone of
50% of emails. To wit, Joseph, I think you better read again: the word
or idea of irrelevance of LT in x-c skiing, relative or absolute, was
not used by Seiler. His point was that it doesn't set the speed limit
for elite/WC x-c athletes, as it does in other sports. But note that he
is not talking about you or me. His one reference to one existant study
of the latter group notes that lactate levels of untrained competitors
were not measured during the race.


Certainly the term "skiers who were untrained for racing" is not very
specific, but to me that means recreational skiers who just ski without
a very hi level of exertion, and thus are not used to the burn. I
wouldn't expect them to push it like someone who does race. Even
someone who races slowly at a hobby level probably tolerates a high
concentration of lactic acid, just as the elite losers in the test,
when compared to non-racer types who don't know how to suffer! I guess
the info in the article isn't directly applicable to normal people like
myself, but to me the article was half-full, not half empty. ;-)

That said, I guess irrelevance is too specific a word. I was thinking
about how my potential performance on skis differs from my performance
on a bike. All of the bike events I care about take me 6+ hours to
complete, and thus are very much governed by my LT, and glycogen
stores. While it seems ski events are generally much, much shorter, and
less dependent on LT, perhaps taking more advantage of my anaerobic
stomp/muscle style more than cycling does.

That said, another article on his site about Norwegian endurance
training methods - http://home.hia.no/~stephens/skiing.htm - proposes a
training method that deemphasizes level 4 in favor of 1 and 5 (L5=10%
of all training). Other recent documents from the Norwegian Olympic
Committee (distributed thru fasterskier.com's sub) suggest that this is
not the accepted approach or breakdown of training zones anymore.

Gene


Based on recent results, I don't know how much stock to put into
Norwegian training methods! ;-) At this point I have no training
method. I just ski hard all the time, unless I am out with my kids,
which means zone 1. But now that I am thinking about my performance, I
will start thinking about some sort of program. But interestingly the 1
and 5 with a focus on always doing some 5 and cutting back on the 1 if
necessary is more or less what I do, but I could add some more
structured zone 1. (ok, maybe it's zone 4, but I try for 5!)

Actually tomorrow I have an apointment to have my LT, VO2max, and power
profile measured on my bike. I plan to crunch some numbers with the
results (mostly for fun) to see how I stack up, in partipular in the
ml/min/kg^2/3 sense. Does anyone know of a similar source of info for
XC as this for cycling:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/...profile_v4.gif

Knowing that elite skiers have a certain value and that untrained
people have another gives a range, but where are the intermediate lines
drawn?

Joseph

  #25  
Old February 19th 06, 09:12 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jgs wrote:
Wow, if what you say is true, something strange is going on. You are
talking about putting on over 20 lbs. of lean muscle. Imagine
slapping 20 lbs. of steaks onto your body and how much larger you
would be.


And stronger if everything is muscles. Muscles makes you heavier, but the
right muscles also make you so much stronger that it will boost your
performance. Remember Salt Lake Olympic games and a certain skier who was
skiing for Spain?

Having you been weighting in every day and using the same scale that
you used when you were tipping the scales at 93? Are you over
hydrated?

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?


No. A small person without muscles will not be able to ski up a hill. He
need to gain some weight and muscles to be able to. How much is a discussion
item. What is the ideal muscle mass and how is it achieved? Big muscles also
makes it easier to ski uphill, and you do not need so much oxygen, i think.

--
Terje Henriksen
Kirkenes



  #27  
Old February 20th 06, 04:32 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Gene Goldenfeld wrote:
There was a recent study that shows that readers mistake the tone of
50% of emails. To wit, Joseph, I think you better read again: the word
or idea of irrelevance of LT in x-c skiing, relative or absolute, was
not used by Seiler. His point was that it doesn't set the speed limit
for elite/WC x-c athletes, as it does in other sports. But note that he
is not talking about you or me. His one reference to one existant study
of the latter group notes that lactate levels of untrained competitors
were not measured during the race.


I just got back from my VOmax and lactate profile test. It was 1.5
hours which is longer than most XC races, and certainly longer than the
10k race the untrained folks did in the article. First we did the
latcate profile, then the VO2max. I was wiped out after the last test.
A few minutes after the last test (while I was cooling down) I asked
the tester to run another lactate level test just out of curiosity. It
showed 9.3. I don't know how long after the max effort this was, as it
wasn't part of the formal test. This shows that normal people like us
can have high concentrations of lactic acid, not just elite skiers, and
thus perhaps the observations in the article do apply to us too!

Joseph

  #28  
Old February 20th 06, 05:24 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think you have very much misunderstood Seilor's article. It would be
pure quackery of him to suggest that untrained athletes won't have high
lactate readings. And he doesn't. The inability to handle lactate
buildup - and thus the need to back off - is a characteristic of lack of
training, just as the ability to handle it is an adaptation of training.
Moreover, this untrained athletes' study measured lactate *after a
race, not during or immediately after a controlled lactate/V02max test
where one is progressively pushed into hyperventilation, typically on a
treadmill at substantial incline and speed. Under the latter
conditions, lactate will go well above 5-7 mmol, which is the whole
point of taking the test.

I am very interested in the protocol of the tests you were given and
the equipment used. Was any part done on snow? Normally, on a treadmill
(w/ or w/o poles) these tests would be done together per a standard
protocol, which takes roughly 20-25 minutes because of the blood draws.
So I'm interested to hear how it got to 1.5 hrs. Was there any
additional warmup beyond the test itself? Tests on rollerskis or snow
not only show different results between themselves and depend on
technique, but also with a treadmill and a bike.

Gene

wrote:


Gene Goldenfeld wrote:
There was a recent study that shows that readers mistake the tone of
50% of emails. To wit, Joseph, I think you better read again: the
word or idea of irrelevance of LT in x-c skiing, relative or
absolute, was not used by Seiler. His point was that it doesn't
set the speed limit for elite/WC x-c athletes, as it does in other
sports. But note that he is not talking about you or me. His one
reference to one existant study of the latter group notes that
lactate levels of untrained competitors were not measured during
the race.


I just got back from my VOmax and lactate profile test. It was 1.5
hours which is longer than most XC races, and certainly longer than
the 10k race the untrained folks did in the article. First we did the
latcate profile, then the VO2max. I was wiped out after the last test.
A few minutes after the last test (while I was cooling down) I asked
the tester to run another lactate level test just out of curiosity. It
showed 9.3. I don't know how long after the max effort this was, as it
wasn't part of the formal test. This shows that normal people like us
can have high concentrations of lactic acid, not just elite skiers,
and thus perhaps the observations in the article do apply to us too!

Joseph

  #29  
Old February 21st 06, 12:36 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Joseph,

This is an interesting thread.

On the subject of whether you are too big to ski well, I thought you
might be interested in the following anecdote:

In the mid-1980s, I did the Hollmenkollmarsj. For those that don't
know the race, it is an annual citizen's race held in Oslomarka. The
length is 42 km; the course profile is undulating and finishes higher
than it starts. The standard at the front end was pretty high then,
and probably still is.

Norwegian National squad members took the first three places in the
race. That would not be worthy of comment, apart for one thing. They
were members of the rowing squad, not the ski squad. (Current National
ski squad members were not eligible to enter. The organisers made an
exception for squads from places like Britain and Denmark.) One of the
rowers was definitely the multi-medalled Alf Hansen, and I think his
brother Frank was there too. I don't recall the name of the third.

I haven't had the privilege of meeting the men. However, I have met
National squad rowers in Britain. The internationally successful ones
are typically at least 190 cm tall and weigh round about 100kgs. It is
highly probable that the rowers who won at Holmenkollen are built on
the same scale, so size is not an obstacle to ski-ing uccess. Elite
rowers are usually pretty lean too. I don't think it is necessary to
be very lean for rowing, but the volume of training means they have to
work hard at eating enough. Lean is good for skiing because fat is
just surplus weight to be carried uphill. So, if you are not fat, then
your weight is not necessarily a limiting factor.

Turning to the subject of your recent test; in my experience, fitness
tests are specific to the sport trained for. In my rowing days, the
club would test people's fitness on rowing and cycling ergonometers.
All were trained rowers, but only some of us cycled regularly. The
cycling results correlated firstly to how much we cycled, and only when
that was factored out, did they have some relation to our rowing
scores. So a running test may not tell you much useful, unless you are
planning to start running.

Anyhow, you sound promising. Some lessons might be a good idea. It is
easier to learn correct technique from the start, than try to eradicate
bad habits.

Happy ski-ing
Alex

  #30  
Old February 21st 06, 08:34 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I just now got to look at this thread, and have a little trouble
following:

"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."

I'm not sure which posts Gene refers to here. Seiler's web site
I've known about for a long time, but can't see anything there
to educate me further about the two questions on which Gene and
I apparently still don't entirely agree :

(1) what it means to say that classic elicits a lower HR than skating
(not to be, as it sometimes is,
confused with saying that training more hours at classical is better
than more hours at skating, possibly because you can keep the HR
lower while climbing, during LSD training) ; and

(2) whether there could be any useful sense made out of saying
that offset uses more upper body than 1-skate (though the exact
negation of that is true IMHO, and a useful factoid, when faced with
not-too-steep climbs and fresher legs than arms, say).


"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)."

That's a good and interesting observation, new to me!
I think the WC have also jacked up the accumulated elevation gain
per unit distance over the past 10 years as well.
There was an interesting exchange with John Estle
here about this quite some time ago.

The cadence of a few of those 500 meter long track skaters
seems almost super-human to me!

Best, Peter

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 11:55 PM
Ole-Einar wants to put on some weight Anders Lustig Nordic Skiing 7 January 29th 04 05:10 PM
Ski Length vs. Weight Edgar Backcountry Skiing 1 December 4th 03 05:16 PM
Which weight training, or exercise, helps the muscles that flexes the legs? DJ Kim Alpine Skiing 9 August 21st 03 06:02 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.