Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
update
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Proms
May 20, 2012, 9:19:23 AM5/20/12
to
Went back to cycling yesterday and will remain with that activity for the
next few weeks at least.
Whatever injury was caused to my upper leg will prevent my walking for a
while. At first I thought it might have been the hip flexors, but even when
I stretch those there is no pain and it is not quite in the same area as the
pain. The pain is sort of in the ballpark of the flexor area, but deeper.
I'm ok on the bicycle or as long as I don't do any weight bearing activity,
but when I try to walk, there is a deep pain, nagging but not severe.
I spoke to a couple of runners yesterday. One felt that I may have
microfractured something in the hip. Neither felt is was a pulled muscle
because none of the stretches addressed it.
As I said before, I injured this area some years ago and the pain was far
worse than it is now. Took 6 weeks to heal then.
Will continue to update progress.
Bill
next few weeks at least.
Whatever injury was caused to my upper leg will prevent my walking for a
while. At first I thought it might have been the hip flexors, but even when
I stretch those there is no pain and it is not quite in the same area as the
pain. The pain is sort of in the ballpark of the flexor area, but deeper.
I'm ok on the bicycle or as long as I don't do any weight bearing activity,
but when I try to walk, there is a deep pain, nagging but not severe.
I spoke to a couple of runners yesterday. One felt that I may have
microfractured something in the hip. Neither felt is was a pulled muscle
because none of the stretches addressed it.
As I said before, I injured this area some years ago and the pain was far
worse than it is now. Took 6 weeks to heal then.
Will continue to update progress.
Bill
Jason Stomas
May 23, 2012, 2:33:34 PM5/23/12
to
Hi Bill,
Been down a similar path at one time, now I'm disabled and unable to do any
aerobics like walking/ running (disabled NOT due to excessive exercise
however).
A bicycle can be a decent substitute for fast walking provided you make sure
the duration is long enough. For example, I used to bicycle around 10 mph
for 3 hours, 3 days a week. At my weight, I estimated roughly 1400 calories
burned each time. However, DON'T try this duration starting out or you may
get sick from dehydration. I speak from experience here.
Cycling can be hard to get used to, particularly for the legs in that mucles
can be really stressed depending on the speed your are riding and/or
climbing hills, etc. I would say to simply stick to a moderate pace and let
the duration do all the work.
When I started out, I made the mistake of too fast a pace (14 mph) for an
hour's time. This burned the calories, but I soon burned out on cycling for
a while because my legs felt like they were on fire all the time. Once I
stuck with a moderate pace between 9-11 mph, I felt much better even over
the long haul and cycled for nearly 25 years before my injury.
One thing I found out was that it appears that no matter what gear you are
using to achieve your speed, you burn the same calories. So 10 mph at the
highest gear burns the same as 10 mph at the lowest. Hard to be convinced
of that though when your legs burn from being in the harder gears.
Good luck and let us know how you're doing.
Jason
Bill Proms" <no...@anywhere.us> wrote in message
news:jpar0p$kld$1...@dont-email.me...
Been down a similar path at one time, now I'm disabled and unable to do any
aerobics like walking/ running (disabled NOT due to excessive exercise
however).
A bicycle can be a decent substitute for fast walking provided you make sure
the duration is long enough. For example, I used to bicycle around 10 mph
for 3 hours, 3 days a week. At my weight, I estimated roughly 1400 calories
burned each time. However, DON'T try this duration starting out or you may
get sick from dehydration. I speak from experience here.
Cycling can be hard to get used to, particularly for the legs in that mucles
can be really stressed depending on the speed your are riding and/or
climbing hills, etc. I would say to simply stick to a moderate pace and let
the duration do all the work.
When I started out, I made the mistake of too fast a pace (14 mph) for an
hour's time. This burned the calories, but I soon burned out on cycling for
a while because my legs felt like they were on fire all the time. Once I
stuck with a moderate pace between 9-11 mph, I felt much better even over
the long haul and cycled for nearly 25 years before my injury.
One thing I found out was that it appears that no matter what gear you are
using to achieve your speed, you burn the same calories. So 10 mph at the
highest gear burns the same as 10 mph at the lowest. Hard to be convinced
of that though when your legs burn from being in the harder gears.
Good luck and let us know how you're doing.
Jason
Bill Proms" <no...@anywhere.us> wrote in message
news:jpar0p$kld$1...@dont-email.me...
Bill Proms
May 23, 2012, 10:34:34 PM5/23/12
to
"Jason Stomas" <jstoma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jpjai0$4db$1...@dont-email.me...
> Hi Bill,
>
> Been down a similar path at one time, now I'm disabled and unable to do
> any aerobics like walking/ running (disabled NOT due to excessive exercise
> however).
Sorry to hear of your disability.
>
> Been down a similar path at one time, now I'm disabled and unable to do
> any aerobics like walking/ running (disabled NOT due to excessive exercise
> however).
>
> A bicycle can be a decent substitute for fast walking provided you make
> sure the duration is long enough. For example, I used to bicycle around
> 10 mph for 3 hours, 3 days a week. At my weight, I estimated roughly 1400
> calories burned each time. However, DON'T try this duration starting out
> or you may get sick from dehydration. I speak from experience here.
Well, this past weekend, I started off and have been maintaining 15 miles
> A bicycle can be a decent substitute for fast walking provided you make
> sure the duration is long enough. For example, I used to bicycle around
> 10 mph for 3 hours, 3 days a week. At my weight, I estimated roughly 1400
> calories burned each time. However, DON'T try this duration starting out
> or you may get sick from dehydration. I speak from experience here.
per session at around 10 mph. This is the most distance at one time I've
ever ridden on a bike. I was off today, so 60 miles so far. What I notice
as far as my body is concerned is that I actually get more tired after the
ride than I did walking BUT my appetite is greater and not as suppressed as
from walking.
> Cycling can be hard to get used to, particularly for the legs in that
> mucles can be really stressed depending on the speed your are riding
> and/or climbing hills, etc. I would say to simply stick to a moderate
> pace and let the duration do all the work.
appetite afterwards and I am eating more which I don't want to do.
> When I started out, I made the mistake of too fast a pace (14 mph) for an
> hour's time. This burned the calories, but I soon burned out on cycling
> for a while because my legs felt like they were on fire all the time.
> Once I stuck with a moderate pace between 9-11 mph, I felt much better
> even over the long haul and cycled for nearly 25 years before my injury.
some sort of strange chill that would happen AFTER the ride when I was
already home for half an hour. I'd get so chilled sometimes that I'd have
to turn on a small electric heater and stay under the blankets for an hour.
Not sure what this was. It was a lot cooler weather than now, but I never
had this happen after walking. Really strange.
> One thing I found out was that it appears that no matter what gear you are
> using to achieve your speed, you burn the same calories. So 10 mph at the
> highest gear burns the same as 10 mph at the lowest. Hard to be convinced
> of that though when your legs burn from being in the harder gears.
> Good luck and let us know how you're doing.
bad leg resulted in a 5 lb weight gain. Not a happy camper about that. The
leg is once again good now, but I still don't trust it or even what was
wrong in the first place. I would think if I actually had a microfracture,
it would take longer than a week to heal, but maybe not.
Bill
Tim Downie
May 26, 2012, 9:55:15 AM5/26/12
to
Bill Proms wrote:
> The hurting legs is what drove me away too earlier in the year. That, and
> some sort of strange chill that would happen AFTER the ride
> when I was already home for half an hour. I'd get so chilled
> sometimes that I'd have to turn on a small electric heater and stay
> under the blankets for an hour. Not sure what this was. It was a lot
> cooler weather than now, but I never had this happen after walking. Really
> strange.
The hurting legs is probably just the fact that your muscles (and heart &
> The hurting legs is what drove me away too earlier in the year. That, and
> some sort of strange chill that would happen AFTER the ride
> when I was already home for half an hour. I'd get so chilled
> sometimes that I'd have to turn on a small electric heater and stay
> under the blankets for an hour. Not sure what this was. It was a lot
> cooler weather than now, but I never had this happen after walking. Really
> strange.
lungs) just weren't ready for that level of exertion. When I restarted
cycling this year I started off with "flat" miles until I'd built up my
aerobic base a bit more and then started seeking out hills. Now, a bike
ride doesn't seem worth doing if it doesn't include some really challenging
hills. ;-)
The delayed chilling effect is down to cold stagnant blood in your arms
making its way back into your circulation once you get off the bike and
start moving your arms around. Arms aren't terribly sensitive to the
sensation of getting chilled and as they're not getting used much when
cycling, they can get pretty cold. The same problem doesn't really occur
when running or walking and the normal movements are enough to keep the
blood circulating a bit faster.
Tim
Bill Proms
May 29, 2012, 9:47:27 PM5/29/12
to
"Tim Downie" <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jpqncb$ke8$1...@dont-email.me...
> Bill Proms wrote:
>> The hurting legs is what drove me away too earlier in the year. That, and
>> some sort of strange chill that would happen AFTER the ride
>> when I was already home for half an hour. I'd get so chilled
>> sometimes that I'd have to turn on a small electric heater and stay
>> under the blankets for an hour. Not sure what this was. It was a lot
>> cooler weather than now, but I never had this happen after walking.
>> Really strange.
>
> The hurting legs is probably just the fact that your muscles (and heart &
> lungs) just weren't ready for that level of exertion. When I restarted
> cycling this year I started off with "flat" miles until I'd built up my
> aerobic base a bit more and then started seeking out hills. Now, a bike
> ride doesn't seem worth doing if it doesn't include some really
> challenging hills. ;-)
I think my heart was more than ready from walking, but walking, even the
>> The hurting legs is what drove me away too earlier in the year. That, and
>> some sort of strange chill that would happen AFTER the ride
>> when I was already home for half an hour. I'd get so chilled
>> sometimes that I'd have to turn on a small electric heater and stay
>> under the blankets for an hour. Not sure what this was. It was a lot
>> cooler weather than now, but I never had this happen after walking.
>> Really strange.
>
> The hurting legs is probably just the fact that your muscles (and heart &
> lungs) just weren't ready for that level of exertion. When I restarted
> cycling this year I started off with "flat" miles until I'd built up my
> aerobic base a bit more and then started seeking out hills. Now, a bike
> ride doesn't seem worth doing if it doesn't include some really
> challenging hills. ;-)
fast walking, just doesn't stress the legs the same way as cycling. In
retrospect, I have a stationary recumbent bike that's kept indoors that I
probably should have started off with. However, I would have a difficult
time staying stationary for 1.5- 2 hours!
> The delayed chilling effect is down to cold stagnant blood in your arms
> making its way back into your circulation once you get off the bike and
> start moving your arms around. Arms aren't terribly sensitive to the
> sensation of getting chilled and as they're not getting used much when
> cycling, they can get pretty cold.
especially in very early Spring when it was a LOT cooler here. I'd change
clothes right away and then have to hop under the covers with a portable
electric heater in the room. With luck, I'd be warm in an hour or two. I
suppose the solution would be to insulate my arms better.
The same problem doesn't really occur
> when running or walking and the normal movements are enough to keep the
> blood circulating a bit faster.
Well, I've been at the 15 mile rides now for nearly two weeks. I'm still
only averaging about 10 mph, but with the various slopes I come across, I'm
sure the calorie burn is more than plain 10 mph. When I'm finished with the
rides, I feel really tired and it reminds me of my speed walking days of
several years ago. This tiredness helps keep me away from the refrigerator
and dinner table too. As a result, I knocked off the 4 lbs I gained while
my right leg was recovering from the walking injury. Heart rate seems to
be pretty good, not as fast as the walking but still within a weight loss
target range. I think I also get some anaerobic calorie burns with the
stressed legs, but probably not that much.
I'll be sticking with this cycling for some time to see the longer term
result. It seems I have the capability of getting nearly the same benefits
as from walking if I go the longer distances and keep my HR within the
proper range.
Will continue with updates.
Bill Proms
> Tim
0 new messages