1.5 legs

azzurribike

I started riding about 18 mths ago in prep for knee recon, previously a squash and hockey player for 20 yrs, now i'm hooked no more hockey no more squash i LOVE cycling! Last Aug I had the knee reconstruction (ACL) after the Op I was immobilised for a month and of course the leg wasted dramatically. Its a year on (3500kms) and I have been riding regularly (but not enough... its never enough is it once you have the cycle bug ). The leg is ... ok ish.

I have been slack re any other physio or rehab, just stuck to the bike. Any others with same experience? Has the leg come good without other rehab?

I have decided to take a crack at the Tour Down Under participation ride in Jan 2009 so on with the training. aiming for 300kms/week and a few 150km rides leading up to the event.

Alex_Simmons/RST

I literally have only 1.5 legs and am only a couple of months back into it, so I know how you feel. I suspect I will need to incorporate other training to deal with issues like a lack of flexion in my left knee and a significant lack of strength* on the left side. It's only recently I've been able to use a full length crank for instance.

I rode the Adelaide hills and surrounds before and during the 1st 4 TDUs and loved it. Fantastic riding. Haven't been back since as the timing conflicted with track championships prep. It must be over a decade old that race now.


* It's interesting how I am barely strong enough to walk up stairs on the left leg (I still need a handrail) but I can still manage a 5-sec peak power of ~950 watts. The bike is great training for what you are looking to do but if you have body imbalances or other structual issues, then it would be wise to address them as well.

For me the bike is giving me the basic start and I will be able to introduce the other work as I go. I really need someone to do some of that stuff with, as it's only on the bike that I like doing solo work.

Doom

azzurribike wrote:

I have been slack re any other physio or rehab, just stuck to the bike. Any others with same experience? Has the leg come good without other rehab?

FWIW I am 4 weeks out from a knee reconstruction and while mine was a broken tibial spine I have just started physio based on the ACL protocol. Based on how the leg feels, the exercises I have to do and how the injury happened I think you should get yourself to a physio to get yourself checked out as cycling only is not sufficient.

The muscle and structural imbalances need to be addressed otherwise they will lead to other problems down the line.

azzurribike

Thanks for your comments ppl. I am not experiencing any issues at the moment, but as you say down the track... I do need to address muscle imbalance. I read on some other forum that some elite cyclists can have as much as a 50% difference in strength between legs.

Hey that means I'm elite LOL!!

pbracing

Seeing a physio is a good idea as they will be able to see flexibility issues and the like which are not obvious to us, but still have a big effect on joint and muscle performance.
I agree that cycling by itself is not enough, even though I'm terrible at motivating myself to do other exercises.

A new physio in my lower limb class last week said of lost muscle, quite as a throw away comment, 'oh, you'll never get that back'. What do people think? I've been working fairly hard, and beginning to think he's right.

idaviesmoore

pbracing wrote:

A new physio in my lower limb class last week said of lost muscle, quite as a throw away comment, 'oh, you'll never get that back'. What do people think? I've been working fairly hard, and beginning to think he's right.

He/she gets a minus score for their motivational and uplifting teaching style :evil:

Alex_Simmons/RST

pbracing wrote:

A new physio in my lower limb class last week said of lost muscle, quite as a throw away comment, 'oh, you'll never get that back'. What do people think?

Find another physio who knows what they're talking about.

azzurribike

"won't get muscle back" what a load of rubbish. So how do people in car accidents broken arms and legs laid up for months then walk again? of course the muscle can come back, its up to how much physio you do. even my 1.5 legs have improved from cycling. but I am still off to the gym to get it all balanced.

Parsnip49

It can be a valid comment when taken in context.

Look at Lance, he was built like a track sprinter before he lost all his muscle when he was out with cancer, after he was built like a TDF winning climbing whippet.

Thats my understanding at least, im no physio, nor do i claim to have a lot of knowledge in the field. i imagine the physio must at least have some idea what they were talking about, even if they didnt explain it too well.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Parsnip49 wrote:

Look at Lance, he was built like a track sprinter before he lost all his muscle when he was out with cancer, after he was built like a TDF winning climbing whippet.

The "Lance became much lighter after cancer" story is a myth.

However his metabolic efficiency improved after cancer, suggesting the proportion of slow twitch muscle fibres increased (slow twitch fibres are more efficient than their fast twitch cousins).

Parsnip49 wrote:

i imagine the physio must at least have some idea what they were talking about, even if they didnt explain it too well.

You'd be surprised what some physios believe.

Just like any profession, there are quacks.

felgen

Doom wrote:

azzurribike wrote:

I have been slack re any other physio or rehab, just stuck to the bike. Any others with same experience? Has the leg come good without other rehab?

FWIW I am 4 weeks out from a knee reconstruction and while mine was a broken tibial spine I have just started physio based on the ACL protocol. Based on how the leg feels, the exercises I have to do and how the injury happened I think you should get yourself to a physio to get yourself checked out as cycling only is not sufficient.

The muscle and structural imbalances need to be addressed otherwise they will lead to other problems down the line.

I have to echo this IMHO- cycling will build quads, but not in balance with the remaining musculature - your hamstrings are very important - particularly as they borrowed a couple of them to make your graft from (I assume you had 4 ply hamstring graft) so you need to address these too. However, cycling is a good non-impact way to rehabilitate, but due to the inherent restriction on a bike, you will hever have to use as much proprioception (the minor imperceptible adjustments in posture to keep balance and load from getting too much on particular parts of the knee/remainder of the limb) particularly if you clip in, so you will have to work in other means of exercise.

My brother in law (total mess of both his knees) uses cycling as his only form of exercise, but as I said his knees are shot and he has failed two reconstructions....

felgen

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Just like any profession, there are quacks.

Too true get one by recommendation / reputation.... though I would suggest there are far more quacks in the Osteopath arena (apologies to any good osteopaths who read this forum!) Some of the rubbish I hear patients come out with that their osteopath told them defies belief....

Toks

Parsnip49 wrote:

It can be a valid comment when taken in context.

Look at Lance, he was built like a track sprinter before he lost all his muscle when he was out with cancer, after he was built like a TDF winning climbing whippet.

er...really? what an exageration :shock: you're making it sound as if Armstrong went from looking like Chris Hoy and ended up the spit Micheal Rasmussen. He lost a few kilos probably 5-8 at most :roll:

binlinus

Toks wrote:

He lost a few kilos probably 5-8 at most :roll:

He didn't even lose 5 kilos. Lance was measured in the lab before and after his cancer by Ed Coyle.

Nov 1992 78.9kg;
Jan 1993 76.5kg;
Sept 1993 75.1kg;
Aug 1997 79.5kg;
Nov 1999 79.7kg

All figures from table on page 3
"Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures"
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/content/armstrong%20article%20JAP.pdf

Armstrong reported to Coyle that he had lost weight, but Coyle never verified this. As far as Coyle's test confirmed, Armstrong was heavier after cancer, not before. Coyle concluded that Armstrong's remarkable improvement was down to "improved muscular efficiency".

Bin