Re: Contador considers Armstrong and Leipheimer Tour rivals

On Jun 16, 10:33 pm, KG <kgringi...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 16, 4:22 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 16, 3:55 pm, --D-y <dustoyev...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 16, 1:03 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 16, 6:54 am, --D-y <dustoyev...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 16, 12:46 am, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 15, 1:10 pm, --D-y <dustoyev...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

 Lance and Levi are just screwing around on their mountain bikes:

<http://tinyurl.com/lttemv>

Look again. "Screwing around" in the mountains - maybe.
But they're on road bikes.

An old dirt roadie like myself should have noticed that <g>.

The wwweb says the road on either side of Independence is 6.5%, so the
"screwing around" stands.
--D-y

The typical climbs in CO aren't steep, as we all know, but what they
lack in severity they make up in elevation.  Independence may only be
6.5%, but at the speeds LA and CH would be climbing them, I'm sure it
won't qualify as "screwing around".

I guess I should quit screwing around, myself, to note that one reason
they might be "offroad" is heavy traffic on Rt. 82 ("Killer 82") and
being able to find steeper grades, with softer surfaces, on unpaved
byways. That's two, or is it three, three reasons...

Another thing that isn't much mentioned as an advantage IRT training/
sleeping/living at high altitude is that at least some people find it
easier to stay skinny when they're parked up high.

I don't know about elevation making up for lack of steep grades. I
think some might not agree that there's a direct connection; IOW, that
one might need to practice (train) dealing with (racing on) 20% -ish
grades by actually riding them.  --D-y- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was referring to the benefits of training at elevation, not implying
that climbing mild grades at high elevation is harder than, or an
acceptable substitute for, climbing steeper grades at lower
elevations.

<snip>

Dumbass -

Steepness aside, there's a downside to training at altitude. The body
isn't training with as much air pressure as what the actual race is
going to be contested at. That's why the altitude chambers are a
really cool alternative. Traiin low, sleep high.

I spent a month at altitudes of over 12,700 ft. with three weeks of it
being over 14,000 ft. and the max being 18,000 ft. We were riding our
mountain bikes across the Tibetan plateau and over the Himalayas
(through a pass of course). Afterwards we were expecting to be
Supermen at sea level. Went on the Pendleton Wednesday ride and had
zero anaerobic power. Not too surprising - during the entire time
spent @ altitude my HR rarely went over 140. With the low air
pressure, it's much harder to get the oxygen to bond w/ hemoglobin in
the lungs. No fuel.

I don't get it. Maybe you never pushed yourself up to
or over threshold while riding in Tibet. That would be
understandable since you probably wanted to conserve
energy and it is really easy to blow yourself up at
altitude. However, if you wanted to, up high it is easy
to ride hard, hit threshold, and elevate your HR. I find
that even short runs at altitude can send HR through the
roof if you aren't careful or have not acclimatized yet.

In other words, I don't think it was the altitude per se,
just the fact that you spent a month without going
over threshold. That will take the edge off one's sprint.

You won't be making as many watts at a given rate
of respiration, since there is less oxygen. I don't
know if the training benefit is more directly linked to
the level of exercise relative to threshold, or the actual
power produced.

Ben
.

Relevant Pages
Loading