A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Graphic for muscle recruitment comparing standing/sitting?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 13th 06, 08:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Graphic for muscle recruitment comparing standing/sitting?

Anyone have a link to any graphics or info about the detailed muscle
differences between riding while sitting or standing?

I googled this and find many mentions of the muscle use being
"different" but no details. It might even be using much the same
muscles but with different intensities in different locations. A
graphic could use different colors to show different intensities. I've
seen these graphics showing the muscle use for activities, so I'm
thinking there's something out there comparing sitting/standing.

Thanks, JP

Ads
  #5  
Old June 14th 06, 01:22 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Graphic for muscle recruitment comparing standing/sitting?

On 13 Jun 2006 16:40:20 -0700, "Chris M"
wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
Anyone have a link to any graphics or info about the detailed muscle
differences between riding while sitting or standing?

I googled this and find many mentions of the muscle use being
"different" but no details. It might even be using much the same
muscles but with different intensities in different locations. A
graphic could use different colors to show different intensities. I've
seen these graphics showing the muscle use for activities, so I'm
thinking there's something out there comparing sitting/standing.

Thanks, JP


Dear Jeff,

It's not quite what you want, but Analytic Cycling has a calculator
with hip, thigh, and shin lengths in relation to the bottom bracket,
with a graphic:
http://www.analyticcycling.com/Pedal...edal_Page.html

Scroll down on the left-hand window for the rider diagram.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel



That is a lot more than I expected to be available!

(Is "googled" a verb now?)


Dear Chris,

When I googled for "googled," I found only 6 million hits:

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=go...s=&safe=images

People often think that dictionaries and grammarians create language,
instead of the other way around. This theory might honor Dr. Johnson,
but it leaves English in the era before him in the condition of the
people described by Bierce as:

"PRE-ADAMITE, n. One of an experimental and apparently unsatisfactory
race that antedated Creation and lived under conditions not easily
conceived. Melsius believed them to have inhabited "the Void" and to
have been something intermediate between fishes and birds. Little its
known of them beyond the fact that they supplied Cain with a wife and
theologians with a controversy."

Shakespeare [1] decided that he liked the way "incarnadine" sounded,
even though it wasn't a word until he thought of it:

"Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather
The multitudinous seas incarnadine,
Making the green one red."

And if Heminges and Condell [2] hadn't scraped the First Folio
together years later in 1623 with the only version that we have of
"Macbeth," we never would have had the word "incarnadine."

See the last paragraph he

http://www.esmerel.com/circle/wordlore/gruntled.html

It's "disgruntling" to multitudinous "editors."

If google ain't a verb, it can pinch-hit until we find one.

Cheers,

Carl Fogaile

[1] Spelt Schaksper, Schakesper, Schakespeyr, Shagspere, Shaxper,
Shaxpere, Shaxpeare, Shaxsper, Shaxspere, Shaxespere, Shakepere,
Shakepear, Shakspeere, Shackspeare, Shackespeare, Shackespere,
Shakspeyr, Shakesper, Shakespere, Shakeseper, Shakyspere, Shakespire,
Shakespeire, Shakespear, Shakaspeare.

[2] Spelled Hemynges, Heming, Hemings, Heminge, Cundell, Condel,
Cundaile, Condell, etc.
  #6  
Old June 14th 06, 02:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Graphic for muscle recruitment comparing standing/sitting?

wrote:
wrote:
Anyone have a link to any graphics or info about the detailed muscle
differences between riding while sitting or standing?

I googled this and find many mentions of the muscle use being
"different" but no details. It might even be using much the same
muscles but with different intensities in different locations. A
graphic could use different colors to show different intensities. I've
seen these graphics showing the muscle use for activities, so I'm
thinking there's something out there comparing sitting/standing.

Thanks, JP


Dear Jeff,

It's not quite what you want, but Analytic Cycling has a calculator
with hip, thigh, and shin lengths in relation to the bottom bracket,
with a graphic:

http://www.analyticcycling.com/Pedal...edal_Page.html

Scroll down on the left-hand window for the rider diagram.


Cool. Thanks. Yeah, no muscles, but it shows how forces change with
rider position. Interesting. I'm slow enough that I don't understand
the whole diagram. I see how the downstroke forces are represented but
don't understand the "short" forces going "inside" the circle for the
upstroke. Anyone have an explanation?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.