Be relaxed

Be relaxed.

In any sport, if you want to last long and perform well, be relaxed.
It is not enough emphasized in the "technique" threads IMHO.

Is it achieved by a good technique or is it PART OF the technique ?
The question remains. I guess that it's a feedback loop. A beginner
will not be relaxed. You'll have to practice a lot and strech alike.

My secret to race 50k/76k with decent results, without much training,
is being relaxed. From time to time, check your entire body and look
for unnecessary contracted muscles and relax them.
("Without much training" means doing something 3 to 4 times a week :
ski, cycling, rollerski, running. Ranging from 1h (running) to 4h
(ski, cycling)).

It is acquired that an acting muscles needs to alternate beetween
contracting and relaxing. There had been much research in cycling
biomechanic to minimize the relaxed time. This proved to be useless
because relaxing is very important to allow various reliefs, blood
transfert and chemical activity before the next contraction.

In that light, I wonder if "double push" is not a misleading technique
where relax time is minimized and therefore performance decreased in
the long run.

Laurent.

"Ken Roberts" wrote in message ...
I thought I had wrestled with every technique question, but now comes one
completely different.

Which muscles do you find to be the high-priority candidates for relaxing in
ski skating technique?

Best candidates are : neck, shoulders, hands (too firmly gripped on
poles), jaw, any muscles involved in the équilibrium in general and
particularly chin and buttock muscles. (Double poling in a good
exersize to improve equilibrium).

Example : When you try to lift something really heavy, you will
inevitabily contract your jaw. Test it.
Any time you struggle against something (steep hill, wind, slush, your
immediate neighbour, yourself, etc..) you will contract unnecessary
muscles.

Well, you struggle and then your body understand that something
uncommon is happening. Then it will be unconscioulsy contracted to be
prepared for any event that could happen in the process. The key is
that you know that nothing suprising is likely to happen because
you're confident and you trust your skis. Then you can relax.


But I'm not understanding the lesson about relaxation in bicycling.
Laurent wrote:
There had been much research in cycling
biomechanic to minimize the relaxed time.
This proved to be useless . . .

? Therefore winning road racers decreased their pedaling cadence turnover
from 90 rpm to 70 rpm, in order to allow more "relaxing" time in each stroke
cycle? or what?

There has been tentatives to increase the percentage power time of
quadriceps relatively to the total duration of revolution (and
therefore decrease ischios). There has been several kinds of oval
"plateau" (not sure of the french-to-english translation) and other
"variable" gear.
The lesson is that there is not only biomechanic, there is also
biology. The biomechanic researchs to increase this "power" time
proved to be useless, because muscles needs to rest and relax beetween
each stroke. .

Finding the optimal rpm is a complex caclul involving not only the
duration of each stroke but also the power applied and the stress to
muscles. Lance Armstrong seems to have found something in that field.
More rpm means less absolute time to relax, but also less stress. The
same certainly apply in XC ski.


I wonder if "double push" is not a misleading technique . . .

Actually "double push" in inline skate technique might result in _more_
"relaxing" time per stroke cycle for some key muscles. (Applying this
"relaxing" concept can get tricky.)



I've not been able to do some efficient "double push" with rollerskis,
so I'm just wondering.
But from the analysis at
http://home1.gte.net/pjbemail/Pushpull.html#Analysis
we can conclude that push time lasts 3/4 and relaxed time lasts 1/4.
We can also notice from that web site that a lot of and impressive
work has been done in biomechanic study, but little in biology.
So, I was just wondering...

Laurent.

I find that relaxation hugely relates to breathing.

When big-relaxed-breathing seems to be what is leading your style then I think
you're relaxed.

--Followed by effort that appears to come from your core. Perceived core effort
seems to relate to relaxation to me. In bike racing this felt like my power was
coming from lower back.

Laurent's "without much training" of 4X/wk of 1-4hr workouts seems likely to get
one in the top 20 around here. Pretty gungho, but agreed not that much in terms of
national-level.

--

Jeff Potter
****
*Out Your Backdoor * http://www.outyourbackdoor.com
publisher of outdoor/indoor do-it-yourself culture...
...offering "small world" views on bikes, bows, books, movies...
...rare books on ski, bike, boat culture, plus a Gulf Coast thriller
about smalltown smuggling ... more radical novels coming up!
...original downloadable music ... and articles galore!
plus national "Off the Beaten Path" travel forums! HOLY SMOKES!

Zach-
That's about the most clear, concise, and generally
helpful piece of information that has been posted on
this list in quite a while. Food for thought-- or
meditation!

chris C.
SLC

--- Zachary Caldwell wrote:
There seems to be a very real physiological basis
for the phenomenon that
Laurent and Janne have identified. In the mid 90s I
conducted a bunch of
testing camps at the Lake Placid Olympic Training
Center thanks to the
support of the OTC and their physiologist, at the
time, Ken Rundell. Ken had
done some studies on biathletes that demonstrated a
very different
HR/lactate relationship when the athletes used V2 vs
V1 to climb gradual
hills. Lactates went much higher much faster using
V2. Based on research he
and others had done on speedskating positions Ken
figured that this trend
must have to do with the more static nature of the
V2 technique. When a
muscle is held in static contraction (read this as
tension, the opposite of
relaxation!) the intracellular pressure quickly
builds to exceed the
perfusion pressure of the blood supply. A tight
muscle constricts blood flow
which keeps oxygen from reaching the muscle (and
therefor increases lactic
acid production), and doesn't allow for the removal
of lactate.

It's interesting to note that the biggest reason
that "clap" skates produced
such an improvement in speed skating times has to do
with the higher (more
extended) leg position they allow. The old-school
position was very low and
consequently pretty static. With the advent of
clap-skates the skaters were
producing much less lactate at their old work
levels.

Anyway, back to relaxation and ski technique. I
pointed out that not all V2
technique had to be static or tense. We had a pretty
broad range of athletes
moving through these camps and we noted some pretty
clear stylistic
differences between them. The more relaxed and fluid
skiers clearly had
better economy (they'd have a lower VO2 for the same
workload) and lower
lactate levels. A lot of this appeared to be related
to balance and comfort
using roller skis in a big treadmill. A guy like
Kris Freeman (as a junior)
was right at home and ski at really impressive
workloads with apparent ease-
even using a V2 technique - while a guy like Marc
Gilbertson ('98 Olympian)
who was older and fitter would suffer badly trying
to roller ski on the
treadmill. In fact, I think we decided that Marc
wasn't allowed to do max
tests on roller skis after a little while.

So the upshot was (I think) that V2 wasn't a worse
technique physiologically
unless it was practiced by less proficient athletes.
Maybe it's better put
this way: trying to "force" yourself to match the
technique of a better
balanced and more relaxed skiers will not be
effective. Just relax and do
what you do. Then go work on balance and technique
when you're not racing!

Zach



"Janne G" wrote
in message
...
Laurent Duparchy wrote:
But I'm not understanding the lesson about
relaxation in bicycling.
Laurent wrote:
There had been much research in cycling
biomechanic to minimize the relaxed time.
This proved to be useless . . .

? Therefore winning road racers decreased
their pedaling cadence
turnover
from 90 rpm to 70 rpm, in order to allow more
"relaxing" time in each
stroke
cycle? or what?

There has been tentatives to increase the
percentage power time of
quadriceps relatively to the total duration of
revolution (and
therefore decrease ischios). There has been
several kinds of oval
"plateau" (not sure of the french-to-english
translation) and other
"variable" gear.
The lesson is that there is not only
biomechanic, there is also
biology. The biomechanic researchs to increase
this "power" time
proved to be useless, because muscles needs to
rest and relax beetween
each stroke. .

Finding the optimal rpm is a complex caclul
involving not only the
duration of each stroke but also the power
applied and the stress to
muscles. Lance Armstrong seems to have found
something in that field.
More rpm means less absolute time to relax, but
also less stress. The
same certainly apply in XC ski.

I have found out that if i don't relax on my bike
doing TT i will do
a result that is about 10% worse than if i relax
and do what i suppose
to do. Especially i have to relax in my calf
muscles or at least use
them as a reference to if feel i'm relaxed enough.
I have also notice
that my pulse goes up when i relaxes, normally i
do 30k tempo around
165Bpm but when relaxed the pulse bumps up to
around 170Bpm, and the
work seams to be easier at that higher pulse.
The explanation i have found is that when relaxing
the muscles at the
right moment enable them to flush lactate out of
it and by that enable
them to work at a higher load at the working cycle
of the crank turn.

Somewhere on the intensityscale we reach the level
where the lactate
can't be emptied from the muscle at the rate it's
is produced, this
is the level where we just can go short high power
burst, so pushing
the lactate cleansing ability up enables us to
produce more power ower
longer time (at least until your body can't cope
with the increased
amount of lacate produced).

But from the analysis at

http://home1.gte.net/pjbemail/Pushpull.html#Analysis
we can conclude that push time lasts 3/4 and
relaxed time lasts 1/4.
We can also notice from that web site that a lot
of and impressive
work has been done in biomechanic study, but
little in biology.
So, I was just wondering...

Do you whan't more analysis?:
http://home1.gte.net/pjbemail/Index.htm
--

Forward in all directions

Janne G









__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Jeff Potter wrote in message ...

One indicator for me of when I'm skiing relaxed is that I can easily
change technique sometimes with every stroke if the terrain wants that,
so that I'm letting my core and the terrain dictate how I ski and am
not limited by tension or awkwardness in various positions. ---It would
probably be a hard kind of skiing to follow exactly! Also, I recall
when a train of racers is going real nice in mixed terrain they're
following each others' core, not their specific moves---(...)

OTOH at least the lesser talents among us probably all have
experienced the opposite: trying to keep up with someone by
trying to mimic his "stride" frequency or length - with the
inevitable result of becoming more inefficient, out of sync
with the contours of the trail and, if wisdom doesn´t begin
to prevail pretty darn quick, extremely unrelaxed and, then,
in a lactate spiral of death...

For me, this can be noticeable within two loops of 1.5km:
I can try and skate behind a 15-year-old smooth mover in
n:nn/loop and on the second one I will be grateful when
the downhill section begins - yet when I skate in my own
inimitable style and rhythm I´ll feel relaxed in not a
second over n:nn!


(Of course, I *would* be a *better* skier, if I had the
kid´s natural(?) technical ability, but trying to force
or "will" myself into it is never a good idea...)


Anders

This "static" contraction or tension might be a different kind of fatigue
than from using the same muscles to directly power motion. I say that
because of my experience last weekend:

On Saturday I did 47 km of moderately hard skating on inlines (with no
poles) in a race. Afterward my leg muscles were so sore and tired I could
barely walk.

So I was thinking I would be forced to cancel my bicycle ride with Sharon
planned for Sunday.

But I got on the bicycle and it was no problem. I easily rode about 130 km
/ 80 miles that next day, and we took on several extra hill climbs. No pain
after 15 minutes warmup.

An obvious interpretation is that inline skating tends to put me in a lower
body position (for better aerodynamics and more range-of-motion in pushing).
Without poles, my quadriceps muscles must support the weight of my upper
body. But when bicycling, my upper body rests on the saddle most of time.
Even though pedaling uses my quads a lot, it does not use them in that
"static" way -- so no pain.

Ken
______________________________________
Zachary Caldwell wrote
. . . Based on research he and others had done on
speedskating positions, he figured that this trend
must have to do with the more static nature of the
V2 technique. When a muscle is held in static contraction
(read this as tension, the opposite of relaxation!) the
intracellular pressure quickly builds to exceed the
perfusion pressure of the blood supply.

But if V2 (versus V1) used energy at a 10% greater rate per unit time
(that's the meaning of power, I believe), but resulted in 15% greater
speed, it would be more efficient, not less. Presumably that's preferable
if you can avoid putting your heart rate up into a range which uses
too much glycogen or produces too much lactic acid. I'm not claiming
that this is a good idea, just pointing out that raising the HR
isn't the only variable. Presumably those treadmill tests were at
a constant speed.

Best, Peter

Yes I was assuming that the tests were at constant speed, since otherwise
the efficiency question would be completely different, as Peter pointed out.

"Efficiency" is another whole tricky thing. The obvious kind we might call
efficiency of motion technique -- or let's talk in terms of inefficiency:

(a) work used in recovering body position for the _next_ forward push,
versus work used directly to power forward motion.

(b) work used in accelerating the skier's center of mass side-to-side or
up-and-down, versus pushing the skier forward.

All skating and classic techniques have significant inefficiency of motion
technique -- but some techniques have more than others (especially when
badly executed).

Which technique is the _most_ efficient?
Answer is the same for all skiing situations: Lie down on the snow.

There are more kinds of efficiency which are important -- muscular or
physiological efficiencies. There are several resources (and several
"capacity dimensions" of those resources) that skier's body uses in skating
performance -- and which could _limit_ speed in some situations, or at least
impact it:

(c) Oxygen transport capacity / VO2max

(d) Glycogen "fuel" available to the muscles.

(e) Lactate clearance capacity in specific peripheral muscle groups.

Peter wrote
if you can avoid putting your heart rate up into a range which uses
too much glycogen or produces too much lactic acid.

I think there are other dimensions of performance capacity than just lactate
and VO2max:

(f) single-repetition or low-number-of-repetitions "peak force" capacity of
specific muscles (or joints) in a specified range of motion. This is
readily observable using weight machines: max weight for 1 rep versus 5
reps versus 12 reps versus 30 reps. Max weight for 40-degree knee bend
range of motion versus 80-degree knee bend. But it's mostly _not_ a
"lactate" limit. Clearly a different additional dimension of muscle
performance -- related to "gearing" leverage -- seems especially relevant up
steep hills.

(g) static isometric capability of specific muscles: Dependent on joint
configuration, time, force-weight. Seems like there's some lactate impact
here, but I doubt that it's all just a lactate limit thing. Managing this
limit is a big factor in ice speedskating technique and training.

(h) "repetitive motion stress" handling capacity of specific joints and
ligaments. This one can be the limit that makes a weekend warrior fail to
finish a marathon. Runners hit this limit in their knees and ankles.
Sometimes with XC skiers it's in the spine.

Different limits become "actively critical" for different techniques in
different races and different terrain/competitive situations during a single
race. The only kinds of efficiency that _matter_ are the efficient use of
capacity limits that are actively critical in _this_ particular situation.

So which limits are relevant or critical for skating up a hill?

I'm understanding the study that Zachary Caldwell reported to be proposing
that (g) is a key factor for skating up hills with V2 (compared with V1).
I'm not hearing (yet) a claim that V2 is better than V1 on flat terrain.

My response is Yes, (g) is a relevant factor impacting V2 performance up a
hill. But I'm suggesting that that there are other dimensions that are more
critical for skating up a hill: like motion inefficiency (b) and peak-force
capacity (f) -- and those two factors are stronger differentiators between
V2 and V1.

Ken
__________________________________________________ _
Peter wrote
But if V2 (versus V1) used energy at a 10% greater rate per unit time
(that's the meaning of power, I believe), but resulted in 15% greater
speed, it would be more efficient, not less. Presumably that's preferable
if you can avoid putting your heart rate up into a range which uses
too much glycogen or produces too much lactic acid. I'm not claiming
that this is a good idea, just pointing out that raising the HR
isn't the only variable. Presumably those treadmill tests were at
a constant speed.

Jeff Potter wrote
What about the idea that a straighter,
more upright, more bone-on-bone
posture is MORE relaxing?

Yes, and there's something else that's even more relaxing:
Lying down on the snow.

Which goes to show that not all forms of relaxing are equally valuable in
attaining that critical goal of not finishing too far behind your buddies in
the big race.

A couple of relevant facts:

-- from biomechanics: You can't use your big quad and glute muscles unless
you first _flex_ your knees and hips.

-- from geometry: The closer your hip joint is to the ground, the longer
the range-of-motion you can push your leg through without losing contact
with the snow (and the more your leg-push is directed in the horizontal
plane of motion rather than vertically downward).

Then I see the mention of the clapskate
being prefered due to the straighter glide leg it allows.

The old non-clap design already "allows" any speedskater to glide on as
straight a leg as they choose.

What the Pilot-like free-heel clap-skate permits is a longer effective range
of leg-push motion -- by using the calf muscles to extend the toe at the
very end of the push.

What to _do_ with that longer range of motion is a choice by the skater.
Speedskaters could keep their hip nearly as low as before, but push thru a
longer distance in contact with the ice surface. Or they could raise their
hip some, and push thru the same distance in contact with the ice.

Since static isometric tension is such a critical limiting factor in ice
speedskating performance, they choose the second.

It doesn't prove anything about toe-push not being valuable. And it doesn't
prove anything about optimal V2 technique (which is done with poles, on
snow).

Ken