Benefits of cycling?

[TimW]

Tim if the 14 stone Man had twice the oxygen uptake(litres per minute)he'd have to have 10litres of blood in his body!Not likely.

Sure the heavier Man has more blood(1-2 litres approx), his heart will be bigger, but his energy will be used much faster.Quantities of glycogen are slightly higher in the heavier Man, but because this is used much quicker, his pace must slow earlier than the flyweight.

Heavyweights are a rarity in fell running, in part for this reason.

That's why I say within reason. Lets say 'middleweights' then, if we're to use boxing weights. There have been many, many world class middleweights - Ron Clarke, Peter Snell and Rob De Castella all weighed nearer 12 stone than 11 when they were race fit. Tim Hutchings was 11 stone, Eammon Martin wasn't much below 11.

I remember a 5000m race between Gebrsellassie and Craig Mottram not so long back. Gebrsellassie won on the last lap but both ran under 13:00, and it was like the little and large show. Don't know what Mottram weighs but he looked two of Gebrsellassie!

In fell running, Kenny Stuart weighed exactly 8 stone, Ian Holmes isn't much bigger. OK so Scoffer isn't in their class with all due respect to him but what about Martin Jones? (mountain runner, twice World Champ) someone tell me what he weighed but I know he wasn't small either!

[CL]

That's why I say within reason. Lets say 'middleweights' then, if we're to use boxing weights. There have been many, many world class middleweights - Ron Clarke, Peter Snell and Rob De Castella all weighed nearer 12 stone than 11 when they were race fit. Tim Hutchings was 11 stone, Eammon Martin wasn't much below 11.

I remember a 5000m race between Gebrsellassie and Craig Mottram not so long back. Gebrsellassie won on the last lap but both ran under 13:00, and it was like the little and large show. Don't know what Mottram weighs but he looked two of Gebrsellassie!

In fell running, Kenny Stuart weighed exactly 8 stone, Ian Holmes isn't much bigger. OK so Scoffer isn't in their class with all due respect to him but what about Martin Jones? (mountain runner, twice World Champ) someone tell me what he weighed but I know he wasn't small either!

Did you say within reason Tim W?These Men that you mentioned are right on the limits.I won't talk about Gabresallase and Mottram for reasons given on another thread.Eammon Martin was 10 1/2 stone at 6ft, and some were saying he needed to lose weight.Thats because he looked big in comparison to the Africans.

I was at my best in 1992. I ran 8.25 for 3k and 19.04 for 4 miles, before I injured myself.I was 10 1/2-11 stone at the time and 6ft. I'm now closer to 12stone and I couldn't run anywhere near as fast as I did in 92. Yet I would consider myself as fit.

On the fells the lightweights definitely reign supreme. They have less weight to lift going uphill, and a lot less stress going down.There may be exceptions, but they are just that.

[TimW]

Tim W you don't have to be a world class runner or champion to write good articles.

No, but I always thought people were more interested to hear what someone had to say if that someone was a big name. Although in this country (sadly) then perhaps not. Years ago I remember speaking to Tony Milovsorov (who went on to run a 2:09 marathon). Tony said he rang up Charlie Spedding for advice after Charlie had won his Olympic bronze medal. He told him "do you know, you're the only one who's bothered asking me!" This to me sums up how we don't seem to want to learn from the best.

We'd rather listen to someone with a 'coaching theory' than someone who's been out and done it. Didn't Billy Bland fall foul of the authorities because he dared say people should train hard?!

Yes if a coach tells a young athlete of today that, oh he musn't push himself too hard because he might overdo it, then that's music to that kid's ears (who will then genuinely believe there are short cuts to success!). I think the snag is that the likes of Billy genuinely don't realise that not everyone has the ABILITY to push their body as hard as he did. That that was part the reason he was so good.

Which is what you have said all along Chris. This is where the scientists will all be smiling, but I stand by my assertion that there is no substitute for learning from the best. AS LONG AS, you apply what they did to your own individual needs (which may involve for example only doing 2/3 the mileage) . If only people realised.

[TimW]

Did you say within reason Tim W?These Men that you mentioned are right on the limits.I won't talk about Gabresallase and Mottram for reasons given on another thread.Eammon Martin was 10 1/2 stone at 6ft, and some were saying he needed to lose weight.Thats because he looked big in comparison to the Africans.

I was at my best in 1992. I ran 8.25 for 3k and 19.04 for 4 miles, before I injured myself.I was 10 1/2-11 stone at the time and 6ft. I'm now closer to 12stone and I couldn't run anywhere near as fast as I did in 92. Yet I would consider myself as fit.

On the fells the lightweights definitely reign supreme. They have less weight to lift going uphill, and a lot less stress going down.There may be exceptions, but they are just that.

You are comparing yourself with yourself, of course you won't run as well as you did in 1992! Different people are different to each other.

I give up.

[dominion]

I give up.

Are you running Carding Mill before you give up?

[TimW]

Eammon Martin was 10 1/2 stone at 6ft, and some were saying he needed to lose weight.Thats because he looked big in comparison to the Africans.

WHO was saying this? I bet it was the coaches, with all their fancy theories. Eammon ran 10K in 27:23. Are you saying if he'd have lost a stone he'd have been down in the 26's like the Africans of today? Not so long ago you were saying that wasn't possible without cheating.

I put it to you that if he HAD come down to 9.5/10st then he'd have been underweight, felt weak, and ran worse.

On the fells, Simon Booth and Jonny Bland are hardly lightweights, yet amongst the best descenders around (if the not THE best 2) despite all that pressure to absorb.

Lots of knowledge Chris, but no offence, too many flaws in some of your arguments.

[TimW]

Are you running Carding Mill before you give up?

Certainly am. Providing I get a lift, my car isn't well!

You?

[TimW]

Heres a question for formites, that takes us back to cycling.What length cranks do you use on your bikes, and why?

Yes I apologise for diverting from the thread title. Just couldn't be arsed to start a new one.

[CL]

WHO was saying this? I bet it was the coaches, with all their fancy theories. Eammon ran 10K in 27:23. Are you saying if he'd have lost a stone he'd have been down in the 26's like the Africans of today? Not so long ago you were saying that wasn't possible without cheating.

I put it to you that if he HAD come down to 9.5/10st then he'd have been underweight, felt weak, and ran worse.

On the fells, Simon Booth and Jonny Bland are hardly lightweights, yet amongst the best descenders around (if the not THE best 2) despite all that pressure to absorb.

Lots of knowledge Chris, but no offence, too many flaws in some of your arguments.

Tim I don't think he would have run any faster.You're jumping to conclusions.E.Martin was at the right weight for him.Had he lost any more weight his performance at some point would have deteriorated.

[CL]

Sorry a bit out of synch on my last two threads.