climbing, force/power required

reacher

Imposter wrote:

reacher wrote:

Then perhaps for future reference you should say here's an hyperthetical question then people would understand the point your trying to make

Are you suggesting that allowances should be made for the 'hard of understanding'..?? I suspect pretty much everyone but you realised that was hypothetical..

You conducted a poll to ascertain this fact did you ?

Plus if super lightweight is thinking that he is going to enlighten me on the subject of strength training or training in a gym then he's going to find that an uphill battle to say the least

imposter2.0

reacher wrote:

Plus if super lightweight is thinking that he is going to enlighten me on the subject of strength training or training in a gym then he's going to find that an uphill battle to say the least

To be honest mate, I think everyone on here is finding it an uphill battle to enlighten you on anything regarding this topic. You shouldn't be surprised that you have been accused of trolling by more than one individual here.

briantrumpet

reacher wrote:

Imposter wrote:

reacher wrote:

Then perhaps for future reference you should say here's an hyperthetical question then people would understand the point your trying to make

Are you suggesting that allowances should be made for the 'hard of understanding'..?? I suspect pretty much everyone but you realised that was hypothetical..

You conducted a poll to ascertain this fact did you ?

The clue that Imposter didn't do a poll is in the words that he used, and that you quoted.

briantrumpet

briantrumpet wrote:

reacher wrote:

Imposter wrote:

reacher wrote:

Then perhaps for future reference you should say here's an hyperthetical question then people would understand the point your trying to make

Are you suggesting that allowances should be made for the 'hard of understanding'..?? I suspect pretty much everyone but you realised that was hypothetical..

You conducted a poll to ascertain this fact did you ?

The clue that Imposter didn't do a poll is in the words that he used, and that you quoted.

Oh, hold on. Was that a rhetorical question? Perhaps you could have told us that it wasn't a real question, then I wouldn't have got confused.

briantrumpet

I wonder if this French chap does weights... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW6xcsnqHb0

ugo.santalucia

briantrumpet wrote:

I wonder if this French chap does weights... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW6xcsnqHb0

Monsieur Marchant... legend! I have his record in my sight... and 56 years time to prepare for it...

reacher

Imposter wrote:

reacher wrote:

Plus if super lightweight is thinking that he is going to enlighten me on the subject of strength training or training in a gym then he's going to find that an uphill battle to say the least

To be honest mate, I think everyone on here is finding it an uphill battle to enlighten you on anything regarding this topic. You shouldn't be surprised that you have been accused of trolling by more than one individual here.

Have you actually considered the option of A, not reading the posts on this thread B, just in case you accidentally did then theirs a default option available which is don't post a reply
Theirs plenty of other threads/ that you could post on yet both you and your side kick consistently feel the need to keep on reading and replying to it.
You do know that in the real world people can have discussions and disagree or not and that it's ok. That's why it's called a discussion you don't actually have to participate if you have a problem with it. It's called freedom of speech in the real world or can you only exist in a virtual world where you lurk behind your avator

webboo

reacher wrote:

Just looking for further information on this as i have seen it on forums quite a lot saying that you only need the strength to raise yourself from an armchair or climb a set of stairs, i understand the principle so i'm not saying its wrong, i just need this information to tailor my training
Going up a climb you can do several things to maintain speed, faster cadence, smaller gears but ultimately theirs a limit to cadence especially for me, basically i run out of puff, so my speed drops or alternatively stay in the same gear but lower cadence try and maintain speed , my question is on this principle of force as i stay in the same gear lower cadence it seems to me that the force goes up proportionate to the incline but i'm able to go faster than faster cadence lower gear ? is this force meant to be constant but only by using smaller gears or increasing strength/power ?
quote
Or you could just do the maths:
e.g. 300 watts on 175mm cranks at 90rpm would require an average effective pedal force from both legs of 182 Newtons, or the equivalent force of 18.6kg with Earth's gravity.

Over a long ride I'm guessing not many people here will be averaging 300W, so let's say 200W (still a pretty darn solid long ride for most) - meaning you need to apply an average effective pedal force of ~ 12.5kg from both legs

I think you original post quoted above reads as asking for information. I can't see where it says when I'm given scientific evidence that goes against what I believe I will keep arguing the toss to prove I'm right but maybe you not only don't read the replies. You also fail to read or understand what you write.

imposter2.0

reacher wrote:

You do know that in the real world people can have discussions and disagree or not and that it's ok. That's why it's called a discussion you don't actually have to participate if you have a problem with it.

I think Webboo has nailed it with his post above. You can't have a discussion with someone who claims to agree with what he is being told, and then appears to forget everything he has agreed with before his next post. This is why I think you are just trolling.

webboo

Do you reckon it's Weekend Cycling Fan pretending to be a bit thick to wind us up.

sloppyschleckonds

Webboo wrote:

Do you reckon it's Weekend Cycling Fan pretending to be a bit thick to wind us up.

Its not possible there are 2 people that stupid.

briantrumpet

reacher wrote:

Have you actually considered the option of A, not reading the posts on this thread B, just in case you accidentally did then theirs a default option available which is don't post a reply
Theirs plenty of other threads/ that you could post on yet both you and your side kick consistently feel the need to keep on reading and replying to it.
You do know that in the real world people can have discussions and disagree or not and that it's ok. That's why it's called a discussion you don't actually have to participate if you have a problem with it. It's called freedom of speech in the real world or can you only exist in a virtual world where you lurk behind your avator

If people ask questions on a public forum, and ignore the answers and the science repeatedly, then don't be surprised when other people disagree.

It's called freedom of speech.

reacher

[*]

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Webboo wrote:

Do you reckon it's Weekend Cycling Fan pretending to be a bit thick to wind us up.

Its not possible there are 2 people that stupid.

I can't be bothered to look but my guess is you and your buddy's don't actually start any threads or ask any questions, you simply sit in cyber land lurking around this forum looking for stuff posted that you can pounce on and make yourselves feel like the cocks of the forum, that's ok though their on every forum, sitting their like addicts waiting for their fix, unfortunately for you back in the real world it might come as a surprise to you, but actually people don't care what you say it's Alex that provided the information I was after, so if it gives you a hard on posting this continuous tirade then carry on, it's not going to effect me one way or the other, my training is progressing very well thanks to the input from aforementioned member

NeXXus

^^This is known as "spitting the dummy out"

Quite fun to watch