burning legs/lack of lungs&heart

[Velvet]

Ok, quick question.

I've had both of these (and sometimes both together). But I'm curious
as to when I get just one or the other and what the root cause is...

Hills around here (north downs), I've been getting burning legs before
running out of puff.

Hills around cambridge, I seem to run out of puff before getting burning
legs.

Why the difference? I know burning is the lactic acid, but I would have
expected to run out of puff before getting that?

Velvet

[W K]

"Velvet" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, quick question.
>
> I've had both of these (and sometimes both together). But I'm curious
> as to when I get just one or the other and what the root cause is...
>
> Hills around here (north downs), I've been getting burning legs before
> running out of puff.
>
> Hills around cambridge, I seem to run out of puff before getting burning
> legs.
>
> Why the difference? I know burning is the lactic acid, but I would have
> expected to run out of puff before getting that?

From what I see on the HRM, you can make yours legs go anearobic without
your HR going up much. Obviously the HR catches up later, but there is a
lag.
To try to keep a constant HR means slowing down a lot, and avoiding
temptation (the lag could catch you out.).
[And on the manc->blackpool it was really tempting, I kept on getting
overtaken by keen MTBers as I was easing myself up the hills]

Perhaps cambridge hills (??!!!??) are longer and you are gradually get up to
being out of puff, but steeper, shorter hills are likely to get the "lag"
above.

[Velvet]

W K wrote:

> "Velvet" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ok, quick question.
>>
>>I've had both of these (and sometimes both together). But I'm curious
>>as to when I get just one or the other and what the root cause is...
>>
>>Hills around here (north downs), I've been getting burning legs before
>>running out of puff.
>>
>>Hills around cambridge, I seem to run out of puff before getting burning
>>legs.
>>
>>Why the difference? I know burning is the lactic acid, but I would have
>>expected to run out of puff before getting that?
>
>
> From what I see on the HRM, you can make yours legs go anearobic without
> your HR going up much. Obviously the HR catches up later, but there is a
> lag.
> To try to keep a constant HR means slowing down a lot, and avoiding
> temptation (the lag could catch you out.).
> [And on the manc->blackpool it was really tempting, I kept on getting
> overtaken by keen MTBers as I was easing myself up the hills]
>
> Perhaps cambridge hills (??!!!??) are longer and you are gradually get up to
> being out of puff, but steeper, shorter hills are likely to get the "lag"
> above.
>
>

Heh, perhaps - they're definitely not quite as steep (I wasn't in the
lowest gear till probably 2/3 the way up the one I tried recently) but
probably no longer than the one here (which is steeper, I think, but
unless I compare those red squiggles on maps I can't tell for sure).
The hill here I was in lowest gear after about a minute :-)

And yes, despite your amazement, there *are* hills to be found around
cambridge. I might add here that I call the hills around me
'mountains', which makes the cambridge undulations/mild hills
'reasonable hills' and flat roads 'mostly flat'. You might notice a
lack of 'gentle undulations'. There's no such thing at the moment,
according to my body. It's either flat, or reasonable hills :-)

Having seen quite an improvement in stops needed on my local
mountainside I've tried this week though, I'm mentally a lot more
positive about the hills, though I doubt the same can be said for
cycling down steeper hills ;-)

Oh. Going back to the 'scary' thread. I drove back down that hill
slowly last night, and counted the bricks in a convenient wall built
along one side. At the steepest (scariest) part of it, it would seem to
be roughly a 1 in 4 gradient. There's no signs to this effect though -
so I might be wrong - but it IS speed humped, so maybe they feel the
'low gear now' and gradient signs aren't necessary?

Velvet

[Arthur Clune]

Velvet > wrote:

: Hills around here (north downs), I've been getting burning legs before
: running out of puff.

: Hills around cambridge, I seem to run out of puff before getting burning
: legs.

You'll find that it will come and go depending on things like wind,
steepness of hill and (the biggee) the relative state of different
bits of your body.

Generally steeper hills will tax the muscles first, since they
need brute strength. Longer hills or wind will tax the lungs.

However you'll find that some weeks your lungs are the limiter,
some weeks your legs. As you keep at it and get fitter you'll
eventually get to a happy nirvana where you can make the whole
lot ache lots all at once :)
Arthur

[Arthur Clune]

W K > wrote:

: From what I see on the HRM, you can make yours legs go anearobic without
: your HR going up much. Obviously the HR catches up later, but there is a
: lag.

This is the problem with using a HRM - it's no good for aneraboic stuff
since my the time your heart catches up your legs are trashed.

Very intense aneraboic stuff is best done on feel really.

Arthur

[Frank X]

"Velvet" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, quick question.
>
> I've had both of these (and sometimes both together). But I'm curious
> as to when I get just one or the other and what the root cause is...
>
> Hills around here (north downs), I've been getting burning legs before
> running out of puff.
>
Which North Downs would they be?

I think the rule is your legs go if you spin in a low gear, your lungs go if
you get out of the saddle and go up in a big gear.

Although I'm not sure when I'm going up the North Downs (SE London) I tend
to vary a climb between spinning and being out of the saddle. So I end up
feeling totally knackered allover.

[Colin Davidson]

"Velvet" > wrote in message
...
(CUT)
> Hills around cambridge, I seem to run out of puff before getting burning
> legs.
(CUT)

Hills around Cambridge?

[Arthur Clune]

Frank X > wrote:

: I think the rule is your legs go if you spin in a low gear, your lungs go if
: you get out of the saddle and go up in a big gear.


Other way round.

Arthur

[W K]

"Doesnotcompute" > wrote in message
...
> W K wrote:
>
> > [And on the manc->blackpool it was really tempting, I kept on getting
> > overtaken by keen MTBers as I was easing myself up the hills]
>
> *waves*

To me on the way back because you've been overdoing it?

[Simon Proven]

Colin Davidson wrote:

> "Velvet" > wrote in message
> ...
> (CUT)
>
>>Hills around cambridge, I seem to run out of puff before getting burning
>>legs.
>
> (CUT)
>
> Hills around Cambridge?

Cambridge is on the edge of the fens. It gets quite a bit
hillier to the south and it's possible to get a decent
workout if you know where to look.

The hill in question is the one between Cherry Hinton and
Little Shelford. We took White Hill since it allowed us
to avoid Limekiln Road which isn't nice for inexperienced
cyclists (or for experienced ones, for that matter), and is
also higher and steeper.

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?X=547000&Y=254000&scale=25000&coordsys=gb

Simon

[Richard Bullock]

"Daniel Auger" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Velvet wrote:
>
> > Hills around cambridge,
>
Not far from Cambridge lies the Gog-Magog hills - rising to all of 70m or
so.

Ric

[Jonathan Geater]

> > Hills around cambridge,
>
> ?

There is a Hills Road. There's even a little incline on it where it crosses
the railway tracks ;-)

Cheers,

Jon