![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
P.S. average spm came out predictably quite low at 26 with a DF of 121.
Cheers mate and congrats on the new PB(s). Sounds like much more to come even with current form/technique if you just go for a standalone 2K. Look forward to hearing how you get on. I'm approaching PBs from a different way this time round by going for the longer ones first and then going for shorter ones as time goes on as the muscle/joint load will be higher and I'm still teaching this creaky old, cyclist's body of mine to tolerate the erg!!!Pie Man wrote:Nice time Gammmmo puts what I am going to post in the shade, but I am very new to all this
Just did 2x2k r 4:00. First was 7:51.5 24 spm which was ahead of my old 2k pb set with a very poor technique. Second was a 7:43.5 25 spm, beating my old pb by 10 seconds. Definitely not my ultimate pace but a pb and it felt hard but good. MHR hit 163 in the second 2k which is the most I have ever seen for any significant time, normally I top out at 160.
Only 70kg? For that height very low. Usefull on the bike ofcourse.Gammmmo wrote:Cheers mate and congrats on the new PB(s). Sounds like much more to come even with current form/technique if you just go for a standalone 2K. Look forward to hearing how you get on. I'm approaching PBs from a different way this time round by going for the longer ones first and then going for shorter ones as time goes on as the muscle/joint load will be higher and I'm still teaching this creaky old, cyclist's body of mine to tolerate the erg!!!Pie Man wrote:Nice time Gammmmo puts what I am going to post in the shade, but I am very new to all this
Just did 2x2k r 4:00. First was 7:51.5 24 spm which was ahead of my old 2k pb set with a very poor technique. Second was a 7:43.5 25 spm, beating my old pb by 10 seconds. Definitely not my ultimate pace but a pb and it felt hard but good. MHR hit 163 in the second 2k which is the most I have ever seen for any significant time, normally I top out at 160.
-Paul
Running gets weight off like nothing else although bike rides of >3hrs are good too. Believe me it's no effort for me to be 70kg...I have plenty of fat round my stomach. At 65kg I was at a point where I wouldn't want to be lower...but again at the time it was no effort to be at that level. I'm a bit believer in eating well and exercising lots but letting your body settle at a weight it's comfortable with. You just get to know.Anth_F wrote:70kg for 5'11I hope all my aerobic exercise gets me down near there eventually.
Still got a lot of lard to shift yet...
Gammmmo wrote:Believe me it's no effort for me to be 70kg...I have plenty of fat round my stomach. At 65kg I was at a point where I wouldn't want to be lower...but again at the time it was no effort to be at that level. I'm a bit believer in eating well and exercising lots but letting your body settle at a weight it's comfortable with. You just get to know.Anth_F wrote:70kg for 5'11I hope all my aerobic exercise gets me down near there eventually.
Still got a lot of lard to shift yet...
You slowly could build some extra muscle, but you must have a very light build. I am not much taller, but below 90kg/6.1 I am a skeleton. I do weights stuff though and have been doing so for years.Gammmmo wrote:Yes useful not just for hills but for reducing aero drag, which is key.I've put on 5kg since stopping riding competitively. I'm naturally slight and stacks (10-15hrs/week) of aerobic exercise such as running/cycling doesn't leave much on me! I also dropped 1-2kg when I went 100% gluten free (out of necessity). Another reason which is related is that I know I need to do some weight bearing exercise (am doing weights plus the erg). I'm not built like how I imagine a rower should look like but I'm going to give it my best shot.
Hope so. Conversely, even at 6'1" I don't think you'd see many good runners or cyclists coming in around 90kg...even 80kg would be very overweight (a pro like Marcel Kittel is 82kg and would be at lease 6'1" and he'd be one of the heaviest in the pro peloton). It's horses for courses. I have come to the conclusion though that vast amounts of aerobic exercise that gets you skinny and promotes cortisol is not great for people long term. I did my first and only triathlon last year (I did a half Ironman and came in at 4hrs 38mins even with taking my time in transitions) and would like to do a full Ironman but TBH I'm not sure how good it is for you.hjs wrote:You slowly could build some extra muscle, but you must have a very light build. I am not much taller, but below 90kg/6.1 I am a skeleton. I do weights stuff though and have been doing so for years.Gammmmo wrote:Yes useful not just for hills but for reducing aero drag, which is key.I've put on 5kg since stopping riding competitively. I'm naturally slight and stacks (10-15hrs/week) of aerobic exercise such as running/cycling doesn't leave much on me! I also dropped 1-2kg when I went 100% gluten free (out of necessity). Another reason which is related is that I know I need to do some weight bearing exercise (am doing weights plus the erg). I'm not built like how I imagine a rower should look like but I'm going to give it my best shot.
For 2k and above you don,t need that much strenght. If you keep doing lower rate longer stuff (carefully!) you will build usefull strenght and power.
For cycling/running, upperbody muscle should be minimal. If aerobic work is not so great, I don,t know, depends on intensity I think and ofcourse if you have the right body type. Lots of people use exercise to lose weight ext. which is plane wrong. Excercise is for fitness. Weight is eating.Gammmmo wrote: Hope so. Conversely, even at 6'1" I don't think you'd see many good runners or cyclists coming in around 90kg...even 80kg would be very overweight (a pro like Marcel Kittel is 82kg and would be at lease 6'1" and he'd be one of the heaviest in the pro peloton). It's horses for courses. I have come to the conclusion though that vast amounts of aerobic exercise that gets you skinny and promotes cortisol is not great for people long term. I did my first and only triathlon last year (I did a half Ironman and came in at 4hrs 38mins even with taking my time in transitions) and would like to do a full Ironman but TBH I'm not sure how good it is for you.
Yes, I always tell people who are exercising for weight loss to find a sport they GENUINELY enjoy FIRST and weight loss will invariably be a side benefit. Otherwise few tend to stick at it to get any results.hjs wrote:For cycling/running, upperbody muscle should be minimal. If aerobic work is not so great, I don,t know, depends on intensity I think and ofcourse if you have the right body type. Lots of people use exercise to lose weight ext. which is plane wrong. Excercise is for fitness. Weight is eating.Gammmmo wrote: Hope so. Conversely, even at 6'1" I don't think you'd see many good runners or cyclists coming in around 90kg...even 80kg would be very overweight (a pro like Marcel Kittel is 82kg and would be at lease 6'1" and he'd be one of the heaviest in the pro peloton). It's horses for courses. I have come to the conclusion though that vast amounts of aerobic exercise that gets you skinny and promotes cortisol is not great for people long term. I did my first and only triathlon last year (I did a half Ironman and came in at 4hrs 38mins even with taking my time in transitions) and would like to do a full Ironman but TBH I'm not sure how good it is for you.
Rowers are not overly heavy, 90/100kg is pretty common, but on a 6.4/6.6 frame. Lightweight rowers are often 6.1/6.3 for 72kg otw. A bit your build.
But if you'd hated it from the get-go you wouldn't have stuck with it.Anth_F wrote:I disagree some what. I decided to get a rower to lose weight and get in better shape... i had never rowed before in my life and just so happens it's been a life changer for me. I absolutely love rowing now, having experienced it and can't see myself not "sticking" to it"![]()
I eventually got bored of mountain biking, and have been doing that the majority of my life...
Go figure!