RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Racing


Archive Home >> Racing(1 2 3 )


breathing(22 posts)

breathingMisterBigRing
Oct 6, 2001 5:04 PM
I've heard that you breathe more efficently by inhaling through your nose and exhaling out through pursed lips (like you're whistling.) Pursed lips are supposed to build a slight back-pressure that keeps your airways open longer. This I can do, but inhaling through my nose is only possible at low to medium efforts. Anyone have any eperience with this?
Can't get enough air that wayMick
Oct 6, 2001 5:51 PM
Look at Jan Ullrich climbing a mountain. His mouth is so wide open I think I can see his molers. And I dare say he's probably a pretty efficient oxygen metabolizing machine.

Years ago my wife tried to convince me of the same thing. When we'd ride together - which didn't last long - I'd be humming along and she'd be absolutely oxygen starved.

I think it may be e-fficient but it's not su-fficient. I'll be curious to see what the exercise physiologists say.
re: breathingnuke
Oct 6, 2001 7:54 PM
OK, I'm not an exercise physiologist, but I've been huffing and puffing for many years, does that help? :-)

In my experience of breath control in endurance, anaerobic exercises and martial arts, I would say that for me, I've found what works best is to not limit your intake breath. I use as wide a hole as I can need. It is your breath OUT that needs to be tempered. I don't go as far as pursing my lips so much that I'm almost whistling....but pursing them somewhat. The problem with not limiting your exhalation is that you can hyperventilate and therefore not remain in control.

A good way to practice this is a constant hard effort, like in a time trial. Start varying different parts until you find that you are getting the amount of oxygen you need. I'm a clydesdale and I push a LOT of air through my lungs. I'm sure to some it sounds like I'm about to die when I'm time trialing, but actually it's just like a big engine...I'm comfortable with it, it works, it keeps me moving fast, etc.
So I am not the only one huffing air =)JoeSlow
Oct 7, 2001 7:26 PM
I heard that the proper way to breathe is to breath in through both your nose and mouth as to get as much oxygen in as possible. I know that when I am riding as soon as I start riding at a good pace I am huffing! I figure as long and im not about to pass out and im gettin oxygen Ill just keep spinning till my legs fall off! hahaha
Most studies I've seen...Kyle
Oct 8, 2001 7:11 AM
suggest that breathing 'strategies' don't work. While you can breath any way you want at at submaximal efforts, when you're really pushing the human body tends to automatically regulate breathing maximally (ie frequency, depth, mouth/nose.) I suppose that the people who couldn't automatically maximize got caught by those saber-toothed tigers thousands of years ago before they could reproduce. So Darwin has made us all faster.

Keep this in mind: Barring some genetic defect or disease, you have the ability to take in more O2 than your body can use. What I mean by this is that you can sit at your desk and hyperventilate faster and deeper than you would at a max effort on your bike. The bottleneck is your heart.

So good news: You can scratch breathing off you list of things in life you have to worry about.
Heart as bottleneckdownunderracer
Oct 8, 2001 6:30 PM
Kyle,

As someone who suffers from asthma, I'm really interested in this area.

Do you have a reference for it?

Thanks,
Steve
Here's a good one, but...Kyle
Oct 9, 2001 7:50 AM
asthma is one of the 'genetic defect/diseases' I was referring to and therefore this paper might not apply.

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/ventphys.htm
please no replies just a point...spankdoggie
Oct 8, 2001 8:08 PM
an honest and prudent post...

but the reference to darwin goes over the line...if evolution was true there would be literally trillions and trillions of in-between fossils evolving into another...there are none.

Don't come up with
Piltdown man, Aegyptopithecus, Ramapithecus, Austrolopithecus, or lucy: they have all been proven fakes...

That is why steven gould had to "create" the punctuated equilibrium theory...

For example: If a fish evolved to a human there would be trillions of in between fossils all over the place.

Only complete fossils exist...there are a few fakes mentioned above that "support" the evolution theory...bunch of lies by the establishment...

I (and others) are not intimidated by these views...

Happy riding!
Sorry, gotta reply...(OT)downunderracer
Oct 9, 2001 2:48 PM
This is not the place for a discussion of the merits or otherwise of an evolution theory vs any contrary theory, but I object when someone tries to make a point and says "don't reply". What are you saying - that you can make a off-topic point but no-one else should?

Here's my take - we haven't been looking in the right place for these missing fossils, if they still exist, which may be doubtful. Earth is a very different place from what it was millions of years ago. Massive forces could have easily wiped out such evidence.
(OT): Evolution is an just an opinion.spankdoggie
Oct 20, 2001 9:11 PM
I said don't reply because I did not want to threadjack this post, and I figured one post in support and one against evolution would be a little balanced...but we got started I will add one more, and stop. I was to trying to stop a threadjacking, but I apparently failed; thus the use of the word intimidated.

If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.

Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory: "It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time." As Darwin himself asserted: "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous."

On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another. Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.

In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly admitted: "If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."

However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was "wrong" with the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the transitional links required to support his theory. This situation caused him to say: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

The fossil record in Darwin's day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: "The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species." He added: "There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained."

Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. He said: "I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, . . . imperfect to an extreme degree." It was assumed by him and others that as time passed the missing fossil links surely would be found.

Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so "imperfect"? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: "The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils." And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: "There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world." Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: "By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages."

After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils "reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins." The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: "The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain." What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so "surprising" and are "unable to explain"?

What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin's day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.

The fossil record which evolutionists highly acclaim, screams that evolution is false while so called experts scream otherwise.

References:

1. New Scientist, book review by Tom Kemp of The New Evolutionary Timetable by Steven M. Stanley, February 4, 1982, p. 320.

2. The Origin of Species, Part Two, p. 55.

3. Ibid., p. 83.

4. Ibid., p. 55.

5. Ibid., pp. 83, 88, 91, 92.

6. Ibid., pp. 94, 296.

7. Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 136.

8. New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

9. A Guide to Earth History, by Richard Carrington, 1956, p. 48.

10. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 6.

11. A View of Life, by Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, 1981, p. 642.
Ahh, but in my example the evidence is...Kyle
Oct 10, 2001 8:11 AM
overwhelming.

We're not talking about humans rising from the primordial soup here, we're talking about (in a sense) selective breeding.

We can see this at work every day (race horses, dogs, disease resistant plants.) Anyone who's toured a castle in Europe and hit their heads on every $#&%! doorjamb would have to acknowledge that human characteristics have changed over only the last few hundred years.

Wouldn't you agree that an Armstrong/Longo(sp?) union would be more likely to produce fast children than a union between, say, me and Michelle Phieffer?(hey, I can dream.) And if that is the case, wouldn't people exposed to a harsh environment adapt to it on some level--even if only because women are more attracted to the strongest of the bunch (something we can often still see today.)

As a side note, I've heard (but never seen any evidence proving) that Jan Ullrich is a product of an East German selective breeding program. Seems to have worked for him...
Like a sign saying "Don't press this button..."Slow Ned
Oct 10, 2001 5:27 PM
Sorry - can't resist either.

Your post smacks of creationist advocacy.

I suppose those trilobyte fossils I found found in a gravel pile as a kid were planted by the "man" as well?

Let me know on this - my youthful idealism has been put on hold pending your answer.

I don't consider myself agnositc per se, but secular conspiracy theories being touted on RBR.com? That's nutty.

Your pal,

Ned
"if a fish evolved to a human..."dsc
Oct 10, 2001 7:21 PM
Please, take a college level physical anthropology course, and see why fish (or any other members of the animal kingdom) don't evolve into humans (or anything else). The theory of evolution has its basis in natural selection, not magic. Now, let's get riding!!
Yep, I'm replyingDuane Gran
Oct 12, 2001 5:38 AM
You just can't go around pushing hot buttons like that and not expect a reply. So here it is:

* Fossilization is an extremely rare occurance. Just because variations on the same theme of life didn't happen to walk into a tarpit on regular enough intervals doesn't invalidate evolution.

* The preservation of fossils is rare. This point has also been noted.

* If two fossils are similar enough, a person who doesn't want to believe in evolution will say they are the same species.

* If two fossils are different enough, a person who doesn't want to believe in evolution will say they are different species and ask for the missing link. Refer to the previous point.

* Most new evidence for evolution comes by way of genetics these day, not fossils, however fossils are very good evidence that you can hold in your hand. Even evolution advocates will tell you the fossil record isn't complete.

Anyhow, these points are about the macro evolution where species do change, whereas the original point was about micro evolution, or natural selection and the passing of good traits suitable for continuing the gene line. No one is out to intimidate you with this view and you are welcome to disagree. There is a good debate out there.
Thanks Duane. We need informed opinion once in awhile.(nm)Jon
Oct 13, 2001 8:58 AM
an informed opinion for you (same as above)spankdoggie
Oct 20, 2001 9:27 PM
I said don't reply because I did not want to threadjack this post, and I figured one post in support and one against evolution would be a little balanced...but we got started I will add one more, and stop. I was to trying to stop a threadjacking, but I apparently failed; thus the use of the word intimidated.

If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.

Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory: "It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time." As Darwin himself asserted: "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous."

On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another. Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.

In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly admitted: "If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."

However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was "wrong" with the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the transitional links required to support his theory. This situation caused him to say: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

The fossil record in Darwin's day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: "The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species." He added: "There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained."

Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. He said: "I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, . . . imperfect to an extreme degree." It was assumed by him and others that as time passed the missing fossil links surely would be found.

Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so "imperfect"? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: "The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils." And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: "There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world." Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: "By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages."

After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils "reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins." The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: "The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain." What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so "surprising" and are "unable to explain"?

What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin's day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.

The fossil record which evolutionists highly acclaim, screams that evolution is false while so called experts scream otherwise.

References:

1. New Scientist, book review by Tom Kemp of The New Evolutionary Timetable by Steven M. Stanley, February 4, 1982, p. 320.

2. The Origin of Species, Part Two, p. 55.

3. Ibid., p. 83.

4. Ibid., p. 55.

5. Ibid., pp. 83, 88, 91, 92.

6. Ibid., pp. 94, 296.

7. Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 136.

8. New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

9. A Guide to Earth History, by Richard Carrington, 1956, p. 48.

10. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 6.

11. A View of Life, by Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, 1981, p. 642.
Most studies I've seen...Jon
Oct 9, 2001 7:43 PM
Interesting point, Kyle. I've read similar data. Another study I read--and I don't recall the source or
the experimental design--demonstrated your point by showing that peripheral aerobic capacity was
the major limiter. That is, we breath in, and our cariovascular systems once trained are capable of
transporting, more O2 than our cells can use in aerobic respiration.

Further to a post below, strong exhaling removes more CO2 and favourably changes blood pH.
another takeTig
Oct 9, 2001 7:45 AM
As an avid huffer and puffer, I tend to mouth breath during higher intensities. I learned from a very experienced coach that during intense exercise, your body can't get rid of the CO2 fast enough. Our breathing rates are driven by the amount of CO2 sensed in our lungs/alveoli. The coach said to not worry about inhaling air. The body already handles that automatically. Instead, concentrate on forcefully EXHALING. By forcing and rushing your exhalation, you help the body expel CO2. I've tried it a few times when I'm about to get dropped and it helps a little. I've never confirmed the validity of the theory though.
another takeBirddog
Oct 9, 2001 12:19 PM
You are right on about that. I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but whenever I'm exerting at a hight level ie climbing, I really make sure that I exhale fully and forcefully. I attempt to rid myself of all that I can in the exhale mode. This seems to enable me to maintain high levels a little longer. Somebody, actually several somebodies have written various treatises about this. It is also called "Ayurvedic Breathing " or something like that. It is an East Indian thing.
re:another takepfw2
Oct 10, 2001 2:18 PM
Another vote for concentrating only on the exhalation. I think I read about this in Mountain Bike magazine 10-12yrs ago. I teach my clients this too. The theory is to focus on blowing out, this will leave less air pressure in the lungs/chest cavity, air will rush in to equalize the pressure. This works really well when you're anaerobic and can't remember your own name, much less to think about.

Thanks for the link Kyle.
Ayurvedic breathing referencejacques
Oct 10, 2001 5:18 PM
"Body, Mind and Sport" (ISBN 0-517-59455-2) by John Douillard describes the Ayurvedic breathing technique in great detail. One of the large bicycle mail-order companies (Colorado Cyclist?) sold the book a year ago or so.
first breathe in; then out :)breck
Oct 23, 2001 11:18 AM
As a running endurance athlete i learned to breathe in and then out on the same meter and effort count. That is, say you are fit enuff, breathe-in three count and breathe-out three count as you bike along. With your mouth partly open breathe in one-two-three & then out one-two-three; the " in's " and the " out's " being the same perceived volume and effort. Some air will come in and out thru your nose but this is only the added benefit of processing more oxygen.

Effort keeps pace with breathing count. Hard fast sprinting would be one-count-in; one-count-out. Moderate fast effort would be two-count-in; two-count-out. Sustained mid effort riding would be three-count-in; three-count-out. The more aerobically fit on long training good effort steady state rides would be four-count-in; four-count-out if you are fit enuff to do this extra four-count. And remember the in-out perceived volume effort is the same and mentally timed much like a metronome.

Expand the belly; take the air down low into the diaphragm. Relaxation is THE KEY; the facial muscles, neck, shoulders should remain as relaxed as possible; also the stomach muscles. What max "count" you are limited to is much determined by your aerobic shape at the moment.

cheers,
breck