Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site mako.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!orca!mako!jans
From: jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman)
Newsgroups: net.bicycle
Subject: Re: Bike ---> Cross Country Ski - (nf)
Message-ID: <381@mako.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 12:48:37 EST
Article-I.D.: mako.381
Posted: Thu Nov 29 12:48:37 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 04:41:04 EST
References: <16200079@uiucdcsb.UUCP> 
Reply-To: jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 52
Summary: 

In article  neal@druxv.UUCP (Neal D. McBurnett) writes:
> It seems to me that x-c skiing is pretty close to running in terms
> of effort per mile... the top runners and skiers are frequently within
> 10-20% of each other in terms of speed.

WRONG!  That makes about as much sense as saying that a Volkswagen and 
a Volvo will use the same amount of gas when travelling the same speed!
Running and skiing are as different as running and cycling are.  The speed-
energy curve you describe for cycling (cubic polynomial) really fits
skiing like a glove!  (Remember fluid mechanics?  Just what is that stuff
your skiis are sliding over?)  The speed-energy ratio of varios sports
cannot be so simplified.  (If you're really interested, I'll pull out
some sports-medicine papers showing energy expenditure for various levels
of expertise in various aerobic sports.)

>As for hills, in all cases (to a first approximation), the extra effort
>required to go up a hill is determined by the effort required to lift
>you and your gear upwards against the pull of gravity.  First, note
>that your bike weighs more than your skis..

Again, a gross simplification.  Are we talking gravel or asphalt?  Nice
set tracks or four feet of mushy snow?  Is the skier wearing a parka,
carrying a lunch and some water, using metel-edged mountaineering skis
(all of which can easily equal the weight of a bicycle.  Generalizations
based on such oversimplification are not valid.

I think it is fair to say that skiing efficiency and work-out value is
more affected by external conditions than cycling, and is correspondingly
more difficult to quantify.  There are certainly times when a 3% upgrade
will cut speed in half, and times when such a grade's effect is nil.  The
wide variety of conditions and situations is what makes XC such an
interesting (frustrating?) sport!

>Finally, as for muscles, I frequently pull my groin muscle when I ski:
>it is stretched a lot in x-c, but not at all in biking.

Granted, as I mentioned in my original posting.  Some one has since mailed
me that a little roller skating in the bicycling season will keep the 
grecillous (sp?) in shape.

A lot depends on point of view and individual preferences.  Sports literature
shows a higher injury rate for runners than XC skiers, and the injuries are
generally more severe.  (I have yet to hear of a top XC skier requiring
knee sugery.)  Skiing is quadricep (sp?) intensive, which maps better to
cycling than the gastrocemius (sp? It's been a long time since anatomy!)
intensive nature of running.  If you have the snow, I still beleive skiing
(the original kind) is one of the better things a cyclist can do off season.


-- 
:::::: Jan Steinman		Box 1000, MS 61-161	(w)503/685-2843 ::::::
:::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans	Wilsonville, OR 97070	(h)503/657-7703 ::::::