Arthritis, advice please...

Peter Clinch wrote:

IME people who mash hard suffer over
distances much more than spinners, with spectacular performance
drop-offs caused by muscles that just *stop*.

I've had that problem for as long as I can remember. Having recently
gotten more serious about cycling I began to look for answers, I tried
drinking more and more regularly, drinking energy drinks instead of
water, eating moire and more regularly, eating energy bars instead of
sandwiches. I also changed my climbing method from low cadence climbing
(primarily standing) to seated higher cadence climbing. The latter has
had the most noticeable effect on my ability to do longer distances.

My ability over longer distances still tapers off too much for my
liking, which may be because of years of low cadence cycling resulting
in muscles characterized by lots of explosive ability, but not enough
staying power.

All my life I've skipped a step when going up stairs. This requires
explosive muscle ability. Recently I've noticed that I'm no longer able
to do that with the ease that I was used to. Maybe my changed climbing
practice is beginning to pay off and my muscles are slowly changing, or
maybe it is just the result of getting older :-)

I
think most people tend to use higher cadences because they're told
they can keep going for longer if they do. They perpetuate such
advice because they find it to be true!

+1

--
Membrane

Colin McKenzie wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
The natural motion is for maximum efficiency at a low,
hunting/gathering sort of speed, and is a very different mechanical
motion to pedalling a bike. It is not necessarily anything to do with
maximum efficiency in pedalling a bike at a given rate, where you have
far more felxibility in tuning your speed/output compromise than if
you're on foot because all you do is speed up, rather than change the
whole motion.
"Natural motion" on a bike is a faintly ridiculous notion, as it's
completely artificial: nature doesn't really do wheels...

But the way hunter/gatherers cover the miles is at a jog-trot. I tried
to time a jogger in the park today, and I think he did about 7 double
steps in 5 seconds. That's a cadence of 80-90, though I'd want to see a
bigger sample to confirm the figure. Coincidentally or not, this is what
I feel comfortable at on the bike. My riding position is more upright
than average, but not bolt upright.


An interesting article on stride rate and length would indicate your
estimate is about right.
http://www.thefinalsprint.com/2006/0...short-runners/
The jogger's "gears" are their stride length, not rate it would seem.

Interesting that the optimum stride rate for runners is the same as the
optimum cadence for cyclists. Must be a message there somewhere
assuming an "efficient competition" theory that if it was better at a
different cadence someone would have found that competitive advantage
and exploited it.

Tony

Ace wrote:

You (both) seem to have moved away from the point of the questio,
which is trying to work out what's best for minimising joint pain.
Pure efficiency is hardly relevant to that at all.


http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/...e-injuries.htm

There is nothing definitive I could find in the arthritis literature in
a quick search but what there is certainly seemed to support a high
cadence over a low cadence

Tony

Membrane wrote:

My ability over longer distances still tapers off too much for my
liking, which may be because of years of low cadence cycling resulting
in muscles characterized by lots of explosive ability, but not enough
staying power.

We are one another, and presumably share the £5! ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In article ,
Ace writes:
|
| You (both) seem to have moved away from the point of the questio,
| which is trying to work out what's best for minimising joint pain.
| Pure efficiency is hardly relevant to that at all.

Yup.

| My take on this high/low cadence in that context is that the best
| approach is the one that minimises pressure on the joint itself, so
| heavy pushing, or mashing, is definitely a bad thing. I know several
| people with knee problems, including myself, but my wife is a more
| extreme example, having virtually no meniscus in her left knee.

No, that's wrong, in the simplistic form that you have stated. Any
person who walks or runs will put their whole weight on each knee
once every stroke. Pressure itself is not harmful, in a person who
isn't already disabled.

What is harmful is pressure while the knee is bent through an acute
(or even right) angle. That is the origin of the rule that you should
never put weight on a knee when it is bent though more than a right
angle - though that rule is much denied in this group.

| The effect of this is that heavy loads on the knee, such as squatting
| or trying to push a high gear uphill, cause a lot of pain, and here as
| in general pain is a sign of potential damage and is best avoided.
| Changing to a middling-low gear for the same hill reduces the maximum
| force being exerted on the knee joint and therefore minimises pain.

However, standing on the pedals with a relatively straight leg does
NOT cause the same pain, and that is how people use high gears uphill.
The point about a traditional upright position is that it is a very
comparable motion to walking up a steepish hill.

Now, whether or not that is going to cause trouble will depend on the
person, but the fact remains that it is a very natural movement, and
is therefore less likely to. And that is confirmed by evidence on
casual and tyro cyclists.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article . com,
wrote:
I'm desperate to get back on board, any ideas? (Any!)

uk.people.support.arthritis is a very helpful nesgroup

--
A T (Sandy) Morton
on the Bicycle Island
In the Global Village
http://www.millport.net

Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article . com,
" writes:
|
| Well, for the past 6 weeks I've been off my bike because of knee pain.
| I went to the doc. who diagnosed osteo-arthritis (SP?). I've been for
| an Xray, and have a future appointment with the physio. I've also
| started to take a vaiety of supplements (cod liver oil, glucosamine,
| green lipped muscle).
|
| I'm desperate to get back on board, any ideas? (Any!)

I shall now get flamed :-)

If it really is osteo-arthritis, none of that flummery will help.

That may well be true, but it's not necessarily that after a
*diagnosis* of arthritis it's not possible to recover. I knew a
lunatic marathon runner who ended up finding even walking painful
because according to the docs he consulted he'd worn out his knees
with too much running, irreversible arthritic damage, never be able to
run again. But being a lunatic he was both very determined and
unwilling to accept diagnoses he didn't like, and five years later he
successfully completed a Himalayan marathon with no pain at all.

His regime was complete rest until no pain at all, adoption of a
joint-healthy diet, then very lightly loaded knee exercises graduating
to walking when that was possible with no pain. He avoided highly
repetitive exercises, e.g. preferred walking and running on uneven
ground.

Over the years I've read complaints on this newsgroup of people who
got knee problems when using cleats which fixed their feet in
position, whose problems went away when switching to cleats which
allowed some foot rotation, so I suspect there may be something in his
idea of avoiding highly repetitive joint exercises.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Nick Maclaren wrote:

No, that's wrong, in the simplistic form that you have stated. Any
person who walks or runs will put their whole weight on each knee
once every stroke. Pressure itself is not harmful, in a person who
isn't already disabled.

What is harmful is pressure while the knee is bent through an acute
(or even right) angle. That is the origin of the rule that you should
never put weight on a knee when it is bent though more than a right
angle - though that rule is much denied in this group.

You'll also find it much denied by telemark skiers, who routinely bounce
down ski runs with both knees bent to right angles and find that since
the muscles can take a share in the impact absorption their knees come
out of it considerably less buffeted than if they'd done the same run
skiing with classic parallel technique, with much straighter legs.
Their /thighs/ will be on fire, but *not* their knees. I know this
from doing it, and no, I don't think I can break the laws of physics.

And how do we take the pressure on a jump? Is it by bending the knees
as much as possible? Is that really harmful?

Furthermore, the above is completely irrelevant to cadence. I don't
know where you got the idea that high cadence goes with low seat
heights: I set mine as I as I can get it and still be able to pedal at all.

However, standing on the pedals with a relatively straight leg does
NOT cause the same pain, and that is how people use high gears uphill.
The point about a traditional upright position is that it is a very
comparable motion to walking up a steepish hill.

People don't walk up steep hills or stairs with straight legs. They
raise their forward leg to a sharp bend and then straighten it. The
maximum effort is on the push off, when the knee is maximally bent.

Again, this is not clearly dependant upon cadence.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Nick Maclaren wrote:

What is harmful is pressure while the knee is bent through an acute
(or even right) angle. That is the origin of the rule that you should
never put weight on a knee when it is bent though more than a right
angle - though that rule is much denied in this group.

While I'm certainly not convinced that bending one's knees is /that/
bad, it seems to me you've missed an obvious way of minimising knee
bend, which is shorter cranks.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 1 Aug, 18:55, "
wrote:
Well, for the past 6 weeks I've been off my bike because of knee pain.
I went to the doc. who diagnosed osteo-arthritis (SP?). I've been for
an Xray, and have a future appointment with the physio. I've also
started to take a vaiety of supplements (cod liver oil, glucosamine,
green lipped muscle).

I'm desperate to get back on board, any ideas? (Any!)

More or less agreeing with other posts.

I have the feeling is that if it's osteo-a. then there is a good
chance that the X-ray will enable a reasonably certain diagnosis. And
then the next step would be to find out how to get back to cycling.

I know you didn't ask this, but its probably not worth attempting to
get your GP to assist you back on the bike; my impression is that NHS
GPs regard anything remotely sporting as frivolous and a waste of
time. Mention difficulty getting up stairs, maybe, but cycling, no.

From my experience with distance running injuries, the average GPs is
useless and some determinedly so. Times that I did receive useful
treatment was via friendship with elite athletes who referred me to
physiotherapists and GPs who fixed me or referred me to on
specialists. But it was all very hit and miss --- and that was in the
Irish Republic where each *visit* cost the equivalent of £40.

Many GPs will reckon that cycling is a dangerous activity.

Incidentally, when I was about 32 and had just started training
properly for distance running a GP diagnosed me with runners knee and
suggested stopping running, and, by tone of voice, that I should start
to act my age. I also had similar suggestions for back problems.
Twenty five years later it was nice to be able to boast that I had run
around 75,000 miles and done some decent times in races, and yet
nothing had fallen off or worn out.

Good luck,

Jon C.