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 ::::::