Spring workouts - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriponsnow 


This was my kind appempt to allow you to save some face. Unless you are a Downhiller & you are on the WC & you happen to be in a local such as Sochi or Chamonix...... winning single runs will be less than 90 seconds in general.
Rec skiers rarely ski beyond the next lip w/o stopping. [emphasis added]
Either get some credentials or some results.....
You have no concept of what you are spouting off on & should not be posting misconceptions for those using EpicSki as a source of information for the dedicated skier.

Wow.  People can read exactly what you said, up above.   Namely, "the longest WC runs are lesser than 90 seconds in nature. Most rec skiers stop 10 times on the way down a 700 ft mtn."

As for length of performance, what I said for the HIGH INTENSITY end of the sport -- using as examples racing and big mountain -- was  "45 seconds to sometimes 3 or so minutes of sustained effort for intense, world-class performances, that require technique and coordination be maintained (i.e. you cannot completely redline) and for recreational skiers often even 10 or more minutes of sustained effort, repeated throughout the day, when at bigger mountains."  You can yell and wave your hands, but what you were trying to claim from a position of authority, as you pulled your "pro card," just happened to be off by a pretty big margin as regards racing, way way off as regards the way many people ski who are rec skiers, and it is telling that you also want to mispresent my very clear words. 

Just for the record, you were also way off as to lift-served skiing being somehow deficient as regards the calories people consume on ski vacations, as well.  Because it is not "as anaerobic as you can get," you can ski the whole day, unlike doing say, HIT intervals in the weight room.  Basically, because people ski lift-served for more of the day than they, say, run or XC ski, it can be roughly comparable in terms of total calories burned. 

So, other than your being way way offbase in terms of the way recreational skiers ski, offbase by a minute or so as to the length of the longest WC runs, and offbase as to skiing being about as anaerobic as it gets, you also blew the point you were trying to make about skiing being deficient relative to "frosty beverages..and cheeseburgers." 

So, I don't think I need to be lectured by you about credentials, thank you very much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by canadianskier 

...   A ten run day at Kicking Horse (41,000 vert) is more like doing moderate intensity intervals with long gondola rests all day than doing a pure sustained aerobic workout even if each run is skied non-stop.  All exercise utilizes aerobic respiration; however, the muscles switch to anaerobic respiration during explosive exercise and intense exercise to supplement aerobic respiration.   One could ski relaxed and never reach an explosive or intense level that requires anaerobic respiration, but with the short duration of most ski runs, this would not facilitate aerobic conditioning very much...

The only thing I'd quibble with is the extent that skiing can contribute to aerobic conditioning, but otherwise this is spot-on. I think a lot of people may have the idea that you have marathon training on the one hand, and the weightroom or a 40-yard sprint on the other, and activities are all one or the other, but it's not the way it works.   Now, unless you're really trucking, that ten run day will equate to roughly an hour, with a fairly healthy margin of error, of continuous skiing. 

For people still thinking that skiing is wholly anaerobic, imagine doing a full hour's worth of 40-yard dashes in one day.  One is not possible, but a full hour's worth of lift-served skiing is not only possible, but done by a wide range of ability and fitness levels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriponsnow 


This was my kind appempt to allow you to save some face. Unless you are a Downhiller & you are on the WC & you happen to be in a local such as Sochi or Chamonix...... winning single runs will be less than 90 seconds in general.
Rec skiers rarely ski beyond the next lip w/o stopping. [emphasis added]
Either get some credentials or some results.....
You have no concept of what you are spouting off on & should not be posting misconceptions for those using EpicSki as a source of information for the dedicated skier.

Wow.  People can read exactly what you said, up above.   Namely, "the longest WC runs are lesser than 90 seconds in nature. Most rec skiers stop 10 times on the way down a 700 ft mtn."

 

As for length of performance, what I said for the HIGH INTENSITY end of the sport -- using as examples racing and big mountain -- was  "45 seconds to sometimes 3 or so minutes of sustained effort for intense, world-class performances, that require technique and coordination be maintained (i.e. you cannot completely redline) and for recreational skiers often even 10 or more minutes of sustained effort, repeated throughout the day, when at bigger mountains."  You can yell and wave your hands, but what you were trying to claim from a position of authority, as you pulled your "pro card," just happened to be off by a pretty big margin as regards racing, way way off as regards the way many people ski who are rec skiers, and it is telling that you also want to mispresent my very clear words. 

 

Just for the record, you were also way off as to lift-served skiing being somehow deficient as regards the calories people consume on ski vacations, as well.  Because it is not "as anaerobic as you can get," you can ski the whole day, unlike doing say, HIT intervals in the weight room.  Basically, because people ski lift-served for more of the day than they, say, run or XC ski, it can be roughly comparable in terms of total calories burned. 

 

So, other than your being way way offbase in terms of the way recreational skiers ski, offbase by a minute or so as to the length of the longest WC runs, and offbase as to skiing being about as anaerobic as it gets, you also blew the point you were trying to make about skiing being deficient relative to "frosty beverages..and cheeseburgers." 

 

So, I don't think I need to be lectured by you about credentials, thank you very much.

Again, where is any source say skiing is an aerobic activity? I don't think you realize how much Bryan knows about ski conditioning and training, he's just being nice and not trying to be a douche to you about it. It would be nice if you would return the sentiment instead of constantly reiterating that in your (un)humble opinion he knows nothing. 

I could keep saying you are wrong, but frankly I don't have the background that he does to explain that the duration and type of activity that is involved in recreational skiing or even racing does not make it an aerobic activity. One out of the three of us knows what we're talking about. Hint, it ain't me and it ain't you. 

And as to your statement about the length of WC races only 5 of the 20 had a winning time of greater than two minutes for the Men's Downhill last season. And of those five, three of them were less than 5 seconds over two minutes. Only the races at Sochi (2:15) and Wengen (2:35) were significantly longer than two minutes. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

...

 

And as to your statement about the length of WC races only 5 of the 20 had a winning time of greater than two minutes for the Men's Downhill last season. And of those five, three of them were less than 5 seconds over two minutes. Only the races at Sochi (2:15) and Wengen (2:35) were significantly longer than two minutes. 

I.e., someone saying that "the longest WC runs are lesser than 90 seconds in nature..." in an attempt to state something about the nature of ski racing might want to reflect on why they were off by such a margin.

Sorry, but I wasn't the one who, in pulling the "pro card," tried to attack a post by making a rather odd and obviously factually incorrect statement about race length, that also distorted what another poster was saying.   People can easily read up above that I'd said that the longest DH races are well over two minutes -- true -- in the context of talking about the range of time within which intense versions of lift (or, sometimes, heli) served skiing take place.  Iriponsnow, as part of his pulling the "pro card," tried to attack the point by saying that the longest WC races were less than 90 seconds.  I.e. he was trying to say I didn't know what I was talking about, but, maybe?  should have known how long WC races are before trying to sound so authoritative.  Try to in essence shout someone down with your Pro status, and maybe you should not follow that by making two factually out-there statements in a row.

Sounds like you still think skiing, even rec skiing, which is lower intensity than racing, is super-anaerobic.  Groovy.  Figure how much you ski per day -- actually ski -- and to not sandbag you too much, just try to match that time of exertion with 90% effort 400s on the running track.  Actually, don't, I don't want you to hurt yourself, but, hypothetically, a 400 for you at 90% would probably take roughly as long, or maybe a bit less, as SOMEONE incorrectly claimed the max length WC races were. 

Again, to be real clear, I don't want anyone to actually try this, it would be too much intense anaerobic exertion, not only would there be a risk while doing it, but there could be a risk of complications down the road from it.  Now, someone who had checked with their doctor, etc. certainly can easily match their total time spent actually skiing on the slopes by running, but how they would do this should be clear, and keeping everything anaerobic the whole time ain't it.

Which is the point.  It shouldn't be a big point, skiing obviously uses aerobic energy sources among others, and for that matter obviously burns a fair number of calories by the end of the day. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost 

 

I seem to recall learning long ago that aerobic was where oxygen was continually supplied by the lungs and circulation system at the needed rate, and anerobic was where the muscles used more oxygen than could be supplied, running up an oxygen debt. 

 

I don't recall any requirements that the aerobic activity had to last for 1/2 an hour or anything like that. 

 

BTW I am a recreational skier, always have been.  Unless I'm waiting for someone to catch up, or get ahead I ski top to bottom.  I'm guesssing that when I have "felt the burn" at the bottom of a mogul run, i was doing anaerobic skiing, but when I was out of shape and breathing hard all the way down the hill with no changes in breathing rate, heart rate, or changes in my sensations of need for more oxygen, that I was doing aerobic exercise.  I would say most my runs on a decent sized hill are a mixture of aerobic skiing with bits of aneorbic activity (e.g. not crumpling up like a pretzel in a compression, hard turn or combination of both) frequently thrown in. 

I think you are correct - both aerobic and anaerobic systems are used in DHing.  Where it makes a difference is when there are training goals.  I don't find DH skiing to help a lot with summer endurance activities.  I come out of the ski season with good power, but my aerobic endurance always needs work unless I have also done a lot of cross training (e.g. snow shoeing, BC skiing, ski skating, stationary spinning).  Since my summer goals include long distance road and mountain biking, it makes a difference to me to understand the DH does not do a whole lot for my endurance sport goals.  I think the point is that DH doesn't produce the aerobic capacity that I want to meet my goals.  The short duration of activity between rests is not sustained sufficiently to produce really good aerobic fitness. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by canadianskier 

I think you are correct - both aerobic and anaerobic systems are used in DHing.  Where it makes a difference is when there are training goals...  The short duration of activity between rests is not sustained sufficiently to produce really good aerobic fitness. 

This is also true.  As regards ski racing, a corollary of this is that ski racers who are focusing on LT training spin on a bike, rather than ski, for supplemental LT work.  The bike is also better for this because it's a much more controlled environment -- easier to measure lactate, etc. -- but it's also true that getting the volume of this training in that you need couldn't be done on the snow.  This is similar to boxers doing roadwork.  Running helping boxers, or wrestlers, doesn't mean that either event is wholly anaerobic, however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

...

 

And as to your statement about the length of WC races only 5 of the 20 had a winning time of greater than two minutes for the Men's Downhill last season. And of those five, three of them were less than 5 seconds over two minutes. Only the races at Sochi (2:15) and Wengen (2:35) were significantly longer than two minutes. 

I.e., someone saying that "the longest WC runs are lesser than 90 seconds in nature..." in an attempt to state something about the nature of ski racing might want to reflect on why they were off by such a margin.

Read his post again. He said that unless you are on the WC or skiing Races at Chamonix or Sochi then you won't see race times exceeding 90 seconds. He didn't say that FIS races don't go longer than 90 seconds, although some of them don't go that long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by canadianskier 

I think you are correct - both aerobic and anaerobic systems are used in DHing.  Where it makes a difference is when there are training goals.  I don't find DH skiing to help a lot with summer endurance activities.  I come out of the ski season with good power, but my aerobic endurance always needs work unless I have also done a lot of cross training (e.g. snow shoeing, BC skiing, ski skating, stationary spinning).  Since my summer goals include long distance road and mountain biking, it makes a difference to me to understand the DH does not do a whole lot for my endurance sport goals.  I think the point is that DH doesn't produce the aerobic capacity that I want to meet my goals.  The short duration of activity between rests is not sustained sufficiently to produce really good aerobic fitness. 

I think this underlined point is the crux of the argument, bone of contention.  It's a question of degree of aerobic demand and current aerobic fitness.

Hypothesis:

An out of shape recreational skier skiing at a reasonable speed (not ludicrous speed!) all the way down a long blue (not double black and frozen) soft bump run will have sufficient oxygen demand and sufficiently prolonged for it to increase his aerobic capacity, but it will not come close to taxing the capacity of someone who is used to running a mile or two in sand dunes.  While an in-shape skier racing his friend down a double black icy bump run for kicks will be partaking in an anaerobic activity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

 

Read his post again. He said that unless you are on the WC or skiing Races at Chamonix or Sochi then you won't see race times exceeding 90 seconds. He didn't say that FIS races don't go longer than 90 seconds, although some of them don't go that long.

Again, what he said, verbatim, was  "the longest WC runs are lesser than 90 seconds in nature..."  He specifically said WC, as I quoted, runs do not exceed 90 seconds.  He was off by a minute.  Why you are continuing to try to distort what was clearly said, and what I am clearly quoting, is more interesting by this point than the initial error, frankly.

If you have any confusion as what WC means, I again suggest Google.

water closet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

[/quote] This was my kind appempt to allow you to save some face. Unless you are a Downhiller & you are on the WC & you happen to be in a local such as Sochi or Chamonix...... winning single runs will be less than 90 seconds in general.
[/quote]
Requoted for reference (you may need to Google the word verbatim). Nope you are dead wrong about what he said. He said unless you are on the WC then you won't be doing 90 second races.

It is always interesting when someone continues to refuse to acknowledge the plain language up above.  What had been very cleary stated was, verbatim, "the longest WC runs are lesser than 90 seconds in nature. Most rec skiers stop 10 times on the way down a 700 ft mtn."  I don't hear you saying I am misquoting him, and in fact since I copied and pasted, I'm pretty darn sure everything is as he had typed it.  Yes, IROSnow did try, in a later post, to backtrack as you have quoted.  However, it's a completely inconsistent backtrack; people can read the exchange up above.  Everyone makes oopsers sometimes, candidly what again seems more relevant is the insistence on trying to ignore plain language.  Perhaps there are social or other reasons for wanting to do so, but that approach quickly can bring the signal/noise ratio of a forum to its knees, because it means bad information gets perpetuated on social grounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost 

I think this underlined point is the crux of the argument, bone of contention.  It's a question of degree of aerobic demand and current aerobic fitness.

 

Hypothesis:

An out of shape recreational skier skiing at a reasonable speed (not ludicrous speed!) all the way down a long blue (not double black and frozen) soft bump run will have sufficient oxygen demand and sufficiently prolonged for it to increase his aerobic capacity, but it will not come close to taxing the capacity of someone who is used to running a mile or two in sand dunes.  While an in-shape skier racing his friend down a double black icy bump run for kicks will be partaking in an anaerobic activity.

Your hypothesis is more or less the idea, the you can quibble on choice of terrain depending on skiers.  But, probably most skiers and riders have a fun, either steeper green or very mellow blue, run, where if they choose they can just meadow skip down as if hiking, as one extreme, where while it's not junk mileage -- they are turning, maybe even carving -- they stay relaxed and even can carry on a conversation while skiing.  Trying to air out of a pipe might be another extreme for most, where after a short period of exertion most will still feel a little worked by the end of the pipe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriponsnow 

...  Providing you could turn some of your stubbornness into determination, you would be an ideal client as you would rapidly see benefit from changing nearly every aspect of your programming & ideology. ..

Your taking it to a personal level is well noted, and in keeping with what seems to be your overall approach.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriponsnow 

Yes, I hold to my stance...the longest WC runs are less than 90 seconds in nature.  By WC I am not referring solely to the few outlying DH races. ..

So, longest, except for the actual longest?  Got it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

[/quote] This was my kind appempt to allow you to save some face. Unless you are a Downhiller & you are on the WC & you happen to be in a local such as Sochi or Chamonix...... winning single runs will be less than 90 seconds in general.
[/quote]
Requoted for reference (you may need to Google the word verbatim). Nope you are dead wrong about what he said. He said unless you are on the WC then you won't be doing 90 second races.

It is always interesting when someone continues to refuse to acknowledge the plain language up above.  What had been very cleary stated was, verbatim, "the longest WC runs are lesser than 90 seconds in nature. Most rec skiers stop 10 times on the way down a 700 ft mtn."  I don't hear you saying I am misquoting him, and in fact since I copied and pasted, I'm pretty darn sure everything is as he had typed it.  Yes, IROSnow did try, in a later post, to backtrack as you have quoted.  However, it's a completely inconsistent backtrack; people can read the exchange up above.  Everyone makes oopsers sometimes, candidly what again seems more relevant is the insistence on trying to ignore plain language.  Perhaps there are social or other reasons for wanting to do so, but that approach quickly can bring the signal/noise ratio of a forum to its knees, because it means back information gets perpetuated on social grounds.

Ok he misspoke and then corrected himself. It would have helped if you quoted the right post earlier. You quoted his correction when you called him out. I had to go back and find the post you referenced myself.

Regardless of if the longest runs are 90 seconds or 150 seconds (which they are) that is still an anaerobic exercise. As one poster already highlighted even WC racers are suffering from Oxygen depletion by the end of the run because they are going at maximum exertion. That is anaerobic exercise. 

However we're not talking about WC skiers, because none of us are. We're talking about recreational skiers. 

That said since you are shirking the responsibility of burden of proof in regards to providing reliable sources rather than unverifiable claims I shall do the digging.

Commentary via Wikipedia:

Maybe you're a very low intensity straight line skier, but I'm not. I feel the burn at the end of the bump run or a long, fast cruise. That is created from Lactic Acid build up. Unless you're not feeling that muscle burn, then it is an anaerobic activity. (Interestingly the Wikipedia article mentions Nordic Skiing as an Aerobic activity, but not Alpine). 

From a bit more reputable source (FitDay) an article about the Aerobic and Anaerobic benefits of skiing: 

So again, I suppose it depends on you ski. If you're the gaper who just kind of swishes around and coasts down the green trails than its an aerobic activity. But this thread is about exercising to become a better skier, one who won't be doing a lot of coasting and moderate control motions. The type of skiing the individuals in this thread are interested in is of an anaerobic sort. 

And finally to go to an article from Curtin University in Perth, Australia:

Included in that article is a factoid from a 1991 medical study which found that:

So now. Do you have anything at all from a source that is not the mind of CTKook that backs up your stance that skiing is primarily an aerobic activity? 

And FYI that is not nitpicking from articles I could find via digging through page after page of Google results. All three were from page one of a Google search titled "is skiing aerobic or anaerobic exercise". 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

So, longest, except for the actual longest?  Got it.

Glad we got that cleared up.  

Let's move on.

Biking:  I tend to ride at a steady pace catching my breath, which I need to do because I had to pedal as hard as I could just before a short hill to gather speed to make it up that short hill and paddle as hard as I could to get up it, or I'm recovering from an ordinary hill which I just paddled up as fast as I could just because.  Is this more aerobic or anaerobic?  My rides last a couple of hours.

Stats for the week according my Garmin - Sunday to Saturday

253 k distance - mostly mtb except one 65 k road day 

13,975 feet elevation gain - about 2000 ft on road

15.4 hours in the saddle (the Garmin only records when moving)

12,567 calories burned

not bad for early season.  need to do more road next week with more zone 2, less zone3 and 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost 

Glad we got that cleared up.  

Let's move on.

 

Biking:  I tend to ride at a steady pace catching my breath, which I need to do because I had to pedal as hard as I could just before a short hill to gather speed to make it up that short hill and paddle as hard as I could to get up it, or I'm recovering from an ordinary hill which I just paddled up as fast as I could just because.  Is this more aerobic or anaerobic?  My rides last a couple of hours.

What I'd say is that type of riding is a good life.  Technically, you're calling on the full range of energy systems, particularly if you occasionally stomp real hard on the pedals.  Fartlek intervals are very similar in track and field, and while they may have started out as just a bunch of Scandis playing in the woods, are also great conditioning.  What type of conditioning do they provide?  Hmmm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

 

Ok he misspoke and then corrected himself. It would have helped if you quoted the right post earlier. You quoted his correction when you called him out. I had to go back and find the post you referenced myself.

No.  I quoted what he had said roughly 55 times, in response to repeated attempts to gloss it over, and no he has not corrected himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

 

Ok he misspoke and then corrected himself. It would have helped if you quoted the right post earlier. You quoted his correction when you called him out. I had to go back and find the post you referenced myself.

No.  I quoted what he had said roughly 55 times, in response to repeated attempts to gloss it over, and no he has not corrected himself.

Actually you quoted each post once. You said that he had said the 90 second thing a couple times, but you only actually quoted the post once. The second time your brought up what he said you quoted his clarification post instead of the one you were referring to (Post #91 in this thread). Hence my confusion. Regardless of your hyper-focus on innocuous minutia in my opening statement I still welcome your input disproving the medical studies and various articles I quoted for you in the latter 90% of the post. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

 

Actually you quoted each post once. You said that he had said the 90 second thing a couple times, but you only actually quoted the post once. The second time your brought up what he said you quoted his clarification post instead of the one you were referring to (Post #91 in this thread). Hence my confusion. Regardless of your hyper-focus on innocuous minutia in my opening statement I still welcome your input disproving the medical studies and various articles I quoted for you in the latter 90% of the post. 

Your definition of "quote" seems to be rather different than most people's.  If 5 or 6 equals one, then you're correct; otherwise, you're full of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

 

Actually you quoted each post once. You said that he had said the 90 second thing a couple times, but you only actually quoted the post once. The second time your brought up what he said you quoted his clarification post instead of the one you were referring to (Post #91 in this thread). Hence my confusion. Regardless of your hyper-focus on innocuous minutia in my opening statement I still welcome your input disproving the medical studies and various articles I quoted for you in the latter 90% of the post. 

Your definition of "quote" seems to be rather different than most people's.  If 5 or 6 equals one, then you're correct; otherwise, you're full of it.

Man up and either admit to being wrong or come up with something else. Quit skirting the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriponsnow 

Great Stats!   I like the comment about the Garmin, I have a GPS unit that when it loses signal it thinks we're stopped & tells me to start moving........nothing is worse than feeling like you are giving it your all only to hear that you need to get going!

maybe your to fast for the signal

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

 

Man up and either admit to being wrong or come up with something else. Quit skirting the issue.

The persistent attempts by you and others to deny the basic facts of what has been said in this thread is in fact one fundamental issue.  To quote you, so your words are clear, you have said, just up above, "Actually you quoted each post once."  Anyone who has read this thread knows that I quoted some of the language in issue multiple times throughout two pages of quotes, 5 or 6 times in total.  Since you were actively posting throughout, often in reply to posts of mine where I quoted that language multiple times, it is a bit jarring to now hear you claim I quoted it only once.

When a poster like you tries, in multiple ways throughout a thread, to distort the basics of what has been said, it really does destroy the signal/noise quality.  Now, to quote some of a recent post of yours, you quoted something saying that skiing is "not only an aerobic exercise, but an anaerobic one as well."  That is completely consistent with everything I've said in this thread, and counter to assertions that skiing is about as anaerobic as it gets that have been made by others.  The substance, for people who read the language, is clear.

For people who want to continually distort plain language, deny plain words, claim that someone who quotes something regularly throughout a thread has only quoted it once, and otherwise want to continually blow lots of smoke in the air, the substance does not matter.  In your case, what matters seems to be trying to move on to the latest distortion.

It surprised me to see a moderator act in this way, frankly, not in one heated post, but in multiple posts long after they've had a chance to consider what they are doing.