Read this

User avatar
toolonglegs
Posts: 15449
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Read this

Postby toolonglegs » Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:53 am

Tell me if you know what this dude is freakin talking about!.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/fea ... ermyotonia

User avatar
JV911
Posts: 5451
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:22 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Read this

Postby JV911 » Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:12 am

:shock:

Lo siento, yo no comprendo

:?:
<---LACC--->
<---BMC SLR01--->


daacha
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:47 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Read this

Postby daacha » Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:48 am

Interesting article. :D
It seems to me the idea is a bit like the law of diminishing marginal returns. They are trying to identify the extra benefit gained by adding an extra input. However it's not simply a matter of utilising excess capacity because as the author says these athletes are at or near their physical capacity. It's not just a case of more efficiency but rather a matter of some small changes (not identified) making a significant change on output.

This is no good for me though cause i've got mountain loads of excess capacity to use up first.
:wink: :wink:
daacha

ClownBoy
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:19 pm

Re: Read this

Postby ClownBoy » Fri Feb 05, 2010 10:04 am

Where he is talking about tension, etc, it 'sounds' like the reason I now include pilates in my training.

One part is because your body is expending energy to assume a relaxed position. For me, part of it is tightness in my hamstrings. It caused parts of my body to have to flex and hold itself a certain way to assume a proper position. By fixing that tension in my hamstring I can more easily assume that neutral position and thus focus more energy on the cycling, etc.

The other part was re-learning how to use specific muscle groups. Like the deep abdominals that should be holding my spine and lower torso stable. They were flaccid and I have been using my higher level abdominals. Bigger muscles that use more energy AND don't do the job as well as they should.

This stuff may not be exactly what he is talkiong about but I will guarantee it is in the ballpark.

Will have a more detailed read tonight and study it if I get a chance. Looks interesting.

User avatar
DanielS
Posts: 512
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:00 pm
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Re: Read this

Postby DanielS » Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:14 pm

I read it about three times this morning, each time I thought I'd missed something that was stopping me from understanding it. I still don't know what he is going on about!

ClownBoy - think you might have clarified it a bit for me.

AllDan
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 8:18 pm

Re: Read this

Postby AllDan » Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:50 pm

I had the same what the reaction to this article.

The writer doesn't understand how shock works or how the nervous system is structured - muscles and blood vessels have inputs from different divisions of the nervous system.

The other stuff is more or less along the lines of relaxation to improve recovery, it's all the other stuff about Coppi that is bollocks

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher