or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Can We Talk Baselayers?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can We Talk Baselayers? - Page 2

post #31 of 40

Is compression a fad? I haven't compressed yet, because I generally dislike the feel of tight clothing, and I don't quite see the value. What's the point? My son tried to sell me on some UA rubber-like girdle thing that cost about 60 bucks. For undershorts? No thanks.

post #32 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by slipshod View Post
 

Is compression a fad? I haven't compressed yet, because I generally dislike the feel of tight clothing, and I don't quite see the value. What's the point? My son tried to sell me on some UA rubber-like girdle thing that cost about 60 bucks. For undershorts? No thanks.


I had a Desente padded sweater back in the 80s that had a neoprene torso section that zipped up tight down the side nice and tight.  I believe it zipped tight for less wind resistance, but it also provided a great deal of lower back support.  You'd really be surprised what a difference it makes especially after a day in the bumps.  I really wish I still had it but alas I outgrew it years ago after I quit smoking and started working out more.  I sometimes wear a torso wrap like the ones people work out in to lose weight just for that same type of lower back support, but that is way more trouble than just putting on an article of clothing that provides the same utility.  Having that support really makes a difference, especially for the first day out when we seem to over do it. 

 

I'm with you on the shorts though,ewwww! 

post #33 of 40

Another vote for either compression as the base, or even just some running tights, with powerstretch fleece over the top. Make sure if your tights are full length, you pull them up so they aren't in your boot. I have various thickness of stretch fleece which I swap out based on the temps. I wear the same configuration on top. Haven't tried wool as I ski at Mammoth and it's never cold enough for me to feel the need for it.

 

REI has fleece stretch tights, etc. in their brand and it's good stuff.

 

Capilene is not stretchy enough for me. I don't even like wearing it around the house as a casual shirt.

post #34 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by slipshod View Post
 

Is compression a fad? I haven't compressed yet, because I generally dislike the feel of tight clothing, and I don't quite see the value. What's the point? My son tried to sell me on some UA rubber-like girdle thing that cost about 60 bucks. For undershorts? No thanks.

 

Can't say whether it's a fad, but it is increasingly popular. Endurance athletes, in particular, often wear clothes with varying degrees of compression. For example, I see long distance trail runners in my area wearing what appear to be knee-high compression socks. 

 

Personally I do find that a moderate amount of it feels good when I am doing prolonged intense exercise, such as cycling, cross-country skiing, or when skiing a bunch of bump or tree runs in a row. 

 

UA is not my favorite maker. In my experience their stuff tends to have a cold, rubbery quality that I don't like, and is overpriced. I think you pay for the heavily marketed name, and I don't think they particularly understand skiing / biking / hiking. 

 

Generally speaking the more strongly compressive stuff (such as the the CW-X tights discussed above, or an Under Armour "cold gear" t-neck that I was given) has not worked as well for me in cold / windy stop-and-go situations, such as alpine racing or groomer skiing, where you spend a lot of time riding lifts or standing around, and where the physical efforts tend to come in short bursts. They seem to make me colder in those situations. YMMV.

post #35 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slipshod View Post
 

Is compression a fad? I haven't compressed yet, because I generally dislike the feel of tight clothing, and I don't quite see the value. What's the point? My son tried to sell me on some UA rubber-like girdle thing that cost about 60 bucks. For undershorts? No thanks.


It may be a fad however I've been using some form of it for around 30 years.  My first experience was when a hockey coach brought in women's stockings`to the locker room and got us to try it under our pads.  We swore each other to secrecy but before long we heard it was in use amongst pro hockey and football teams.  Not long thereafter a pro football team confessed. Not long after that products were made less appropriate for a cross dresser.

 

IMO, as lowers, it's most useful for overuse of overdeveloped hamstrings but there are those who say it's more about quads.  There's actually research proving its benefits but then maybe it was commissioned by a manufacturer.  Whatever the case, it makes my hamstrings, calves and quads feel more functional, resilient and supported during athletic use and overuse.  Dancers are prone to overuse and for them it's typically a staple.  In any case to me it just feels really good.  At my age if it feels good and you aren't hurting anyone, what the hell.

 

It does seem useful for posing in the case of well built guys but remember, in this case it's covered up and typically expensive so that may be suggestive of benefits.

post #36 of 40

 

Don't forget the garter hahahaha

post #37 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
 

 

Don't forget the garter hahahaha


Lol, guess I should have said pantyhose.  Yes, the boys would complain.

post #38 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorenzzo View Post
 
 

 

 

It does seem useful for posing in the case of well built guys but remember, in this case it's covered up and typically expensive so that may be suggestive of benefits.


http://www.glieberman.com/a876-thermofabric-full-support-footless-tights-with-fly/

post #39 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by slipshod View Post

Is compression a fad? I haven't compressed yet, because I generally dislike the feel of tight clothing, and I don't quite see the value. What's the point? My son tried to sell me on some UA rubber-like girdle thing that cost about 60 bucks. For undershorts? No thanks.

They either work well or are the best placebo out there. After I skied with the Opedix and trying a few different things, I won't ski without them.

Here is the review I wrote on Opedix.

http://epicski.onthesnow.com/products/opedix-s1-ski-and-board-tights/reviews/2677
post #40 of 40

I have most of the options mentioned, and I wear all of them, depending on conditions.  A few thoughts:

 

1.  If you don't like wearing wool next-to-skin (I don't, not even the 18 micron stuff), try wearing a silk t-neck as your next-to-skin base layer with the wool over that.  Silk is very thin, naturally wicking, and it avoids the itch.

 

2.  I have tried the running/insulating tights that are supposed to provide muscle/ligament support (CW-X).  They cost a lot and, while they are fine insulating tights and they look good on some people après ski, I'm not convinced they really do much of anything in terms of providing muscle or ligament support.

 

3.  I wear/love power stretch (it is my go-to second layer on very cold days), but I wouldn't call it a "compression" fit in the same way as some of the Under Armor tops are a "compression" fit.  If you're looking for an Under Armor style compression fit, you may be disappointed by power stretch.

 

STE

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Can We Talk Baselayers?