A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Nordic Skiing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

looking for better technique isn't worth it



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 6th 06, 09:13 PM posted to rec.skiing.nordic
Ken Roberts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 243
Default looking for better technique isn't worth it

Very few skiers have put more energy into trying to improve their technique
during the past six years than I have. Along the way some smart people on
this newsgroup responded that I'd get more benefit from just putting my
skiing time into doing workouts of the appropriate intensity and duration
for each day. Now I'm coming to think there's a lot of truth to that advice.
Here's why:

* The muscular moves of XC skiing (especially skating) are too complicated
for even scientists focusing on it to really understand accurately -- unless
somebody put a lot lot more money into research then is ever going to happen
for this sport.

* Even if a few scientists and top coaches knew how it worked optimally for
full-time 23-year-old elite racers, we still wouldn't know which aspects of
that applied to 37-year-old citizen racers.

* Even if well-understood, many of the concepts are non-intuitive and
complicated, so it would take enormous labor by a highly-skilled
inter-disciplinary team of authors and advisors to be able to _communicate_
that in a book or CD or DVD simple enough for most of us to grasp without
substantial misunderstandings -- only likely to happen if there's way way
more purchasers than are in this sport.

* Even if a few scientists and national team coaches really understood the
biomechanics accurately, the biomechanics is too complicated for most of the
local and regional coaches to have the time and focus to understand it
carefully -- unless coaches were paid a lot more money than is ever going to
happen ...

* Therefore, the probability that the coach who you take a lesson from is
going to know what's really the best technique for you to work on now is not
very high. It's much easier to spot things which are surely _not_ optimal
technique for you -- and (surprise!) lots of coaches seem to be good at
that.

* If you try to figure out what works for yourself, the big problem is that
a _normal_ feeling of a new move which is a genuine long-term improvement is
wierdness and harder work. New moves which make skiing feel easier right
away generally lead to no long-term improvement. Getting consistent
measurable benefit from a new move normally takes at least a couple months,
often a whole season.

* Another big problem is that as you get accustomed to the new move, it gets
easy to feel all the positive things directly from it, but hard to feel or
measure the losses from diverting mental focus (and oxygen pressure) from
other moves, losses from compromising the range-of-motion or leverage
position or timing of other moves. You work on one new trick, and you forget
to do the other three tricks from last month. More subtle, focus on the
concept or "image" of any move, and you slow down the unconscious "flow".

* It's possible to choose the wrong new move, then put in all the hours and
months of work, and still not get any long-term benefit (or not ever _know_
if you got benefit from it). Trying out a new move in XC skiing is
necessarily "faith-based". (Like some other faith-based activities, it works
better if you enjoy the process as well as the goal.)

I still think that learning a new technique can result in a long-term
increase in speed. But finding the new technique that's appropriate for me
at my stage of development now -- then actually extracting net positive
benefit from it for me for a long-term increase in my skiing speed -- that's
a lot trickier, not necessarily a good bet for investing time. Except for me
it's been worth it because I find mastering new moves and combinations fun
in itself.

Also trying a new technique is worth it for lots of racers because
_anything_ that motivates training tends to help racing performance. And
most things that expose our unconscious neuro-muscular supercomputer in our
brain to new data on new combinations of moves will likely improve its
control sensitivity and optimization. But those results could follow as well
from playing with bad techniques. Anyway the "motivational" aspect is only
short-term, and requires another latest newer technique for next season --
which (surprise!) regional camps and clinics and magazines are most happy to
provide.

Ken


Ads
  #2  
Old November 7th 06, 01:21 AM posted to rec.skiing.nordic
Zeke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default looking for better technique isn't worth it

I call BS on this one! I'm sure you're much faster than me with
whatever level of skill you have. A good motor will almost always go
faster than good technique. However....

You seem to be assuming that the only purpose for nordic skiing is
going fast. This just isn't true. Skiing isn't a racing sport, racing
is just one minor aspect. One of the things I (and I do believe most
others) enjoy about every type of skiing I do - alpine, nordic downhil
(tele - on and off piste), skate skiing, track classical technique - is
to do it as gracefully and with as good technique as possible. I
really think it's a worthy goal.

I know relatively few alpine, tele or even track skiers who are in it
for racing, and this includes many highly skilled excellent skiers.
For example, how many excellent alpine skiers are actually in it for
the racing? The same is true for nordic, maybe not so in the limited
subset that participate in this particular forum. This is not meant as
a criticism, just that the traffic on this forum represents a very
small portion of excellent nordic skiers.

Working on technique for technique's sake alone is worth while.

  #3  
Old November 7th 06, 02:57 AM posted to rec.skiing.nordic
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 59
Default looking for better technique isn't worth it

I agree a bit Ken. If you watch a World Cup or Olympic race, there are
defintiey some skiers that have odd techniques or at least something
that the majority of skiers don't do. You can nit-pick little things
about their technique and think, "I was always told that was wrong".
They still find a way to be insanely fast though!

  #5  
Old November 7th 06, 03:59 AM posted to rec.skiing.nordic
Ken Roberts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 243
Default looking for better technique isn't worth it

Zeke wrote
You seem to be assuming that the only purpose
for nordic skiing is going fast. This just isn't true.


You're right to call me on that -- thanks Zeke. I should have been more
clear at the start that I was talking about the goal of speed.

I basically agree with you, but when you start saying stuff like this . . .

... racing is just one minor aspect.


Whoa!?!
Watch out for lightning bolts from above.

do it as gracefully and with as good technique as possible.


An unexamined assumption is that the technique which is best for speed is
also going to look and/or feel graceful.

Ken


  #6  
Old November 7th 06, 05:09 AM posted to rec.skiing.nordic
Ken Roberts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 243
Default looking for better technique isn't worth it

wrote
If you watch a World Cup or Olympic race, there are
definitely some skiers that have odd techniques ...
You can nit-pick little things about their technique and
think, "I was always told that was wrong".


The biggest example for me is Thomas Alsgaard. In the 1990s he was a winning
skater. Then in the early 00s people were congratulating themselves on how
with the new scientific research we were moving past those obviously
wasteful excessive moves of Alsgaard. In the next few years the American
skiers adopting the "new" scientific approach didn't have much success in
World Cup races. Then my coach came back from West Yellowstone and told me:
"Learn from Alsgaard." Next I hear he's been hired as technique coach for
the Swedish team.

What prompted me to post my note was wandering over to the rec.bicycles.tech
newsgroup and getting my face shoved into some the scientific research on
bicycle pedaling. I had just sort of guessed that bicycling had been studied
for so long it must have been all figured out long ago. But then I found out
it looked like still during the most recent ten years, they were still
finding surprising new things about how the different muscles actually
coordinate in pedaling seated. Surprising things like that in high-power
pedaling, there's good evidence that some different leg muscles work
against each other -- and that's just the optimal way to achieve a higher
power output. I would have guessed that muscles working against each other
was a No-No for propulsion -- so obviously stupid that there was no need to
write down a rule about it -- but . . . when I heard the explanation, it
sorta made sense.

Seated pedaling on a bicycle is pretty near the simplest kind of human
propulsion. Ski skating with poles is way way more complicated on every
dimension I can think of. So if the scientists are only recently reaching an
accurate understanding of a simple technique with way more money in it than
XC skiing, then how far away are we probably from an accurate understanding
of skiing? And I considered the tricks the scientists needed to use to
estimate what was happening in the muscles for pedaling, and felt serious
doubt that those tricks could convincingly work for something as complicated
as the coordination of muscles for ski-skating with poles.

Not that scientists could not come up with some model for how Ole-Einar
Bjorndalen's muscles coordinate for skating -- but that the scientists could
never justify how that model was better than three (or eight) other models
which also explained Bjorndalen's observed motion data. What if two of those
other models indicated that if he completely abandoned his current style and
learned a new coordination and timing of his muscles around a different core
body position -- then he would ski faster -- if he would quit racing for two
years to do that. How's that for a "faith-based" training program?

But the really surprising aspect was watching rec.bicycles.tech participants
try to apply scientific principles to questions of training and technique.
Quickly showed how easy it is to misunderstand the concepts, how hard it is
to communicate them clearly, how tricky it is to apply them effectively.
Now seated pedaling is 2-dimensional, using 3 joints, 4 functional muscle
groups, in contrained motion with only one controllable "degree of freedom".
But ski-skating with poles is fully 3-dimensional, many joints, many
functional muscle groups, in unconstrained motion with many many mechanical
"degrees of freedom". If communication and inferences are already that much
confused for techniques of bicycling, how much hope can we have for skating
on skis with poles?

Ken


  #7  
Old November 7th 06, 02:55 PM posted to rec.skiing.nordic
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default looking for better technique isn't worth it


Ken Roberts wrote:
I should have been more
clear at the start that I was talking about the goal of speed.


I think speed probably depends more on proper ski flex, structure and
wax than technique. We've all seen a lot of guys go fast, good
technique lets you do this with a minimum of energy.

An unexamined assumption is that the technique which is best for speed is
also going to look and/or feel graceful.


For me, this is not unexamined - At a clinic given by Ben Husaby
several years ago, he very clearly demonstrated techniques that really
looked good, but were all wrong. Husaby had the ability to slowly and
noticeably change his body position and technique from "wrong" to
"right". It was a real eye opener, trying to "unlearn" what I always
thought was correct from watching others ski.

do it as gracefully and with as good technique as possible.


Ahhh...now the key point. We ski because it is fun, it is relaxing, it
is a time to spend with family and friends, usually in a location that
is a joy to behold. It is easy to wring the life out of a sport with
training, racing and constantly analyzing (and second guessing) every
aspect of it - I know, because I've done it. I still enjoy ski racing
and do train for it but that isn't all there is to nordic skiing.

- Bob

  #8  
Old November 7th 06, 04:04 PM posted to rec.skiing.nordic
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default looking for better technique isn't worth it


Ken Roberts wrote:
wrote
If you watch a World Cup or Olympic race, there are
definitely some skiers that have odd techniques ...
You can nit-pick little things about their technique and
think, "I was always told that was wrong".


The biggest example for me is Thomas Alsgaard. In the 1990s he was a winning
skater. Then in the early 00s people were congratulating themselves on how
with the new scientific research we were moving past those obviously
wasteful excessive moves of Alsgaard. In the next few years the American
skiers adopting the "new" scientific approach didn't have much success in
World Cup races. Then my coach came back from West Yellowstone and told me:
"Learn from Alsgaard." Next I hear he's been hired as technique coach for
the Swedish team.



Ken,

Thanks for starting an interesting discussion. If you have a chance to
watch Julia Tchepalova and Marit Bjoergen in the 4th leg of the '05
Oberstdorf World Cup Women's Relay you'll see a good example of two
different styles that have both produced gold medals, Tchepalova a
picture of grace and fluidity, Bjoergen rather stiff-legged but
extremely strong.

I would be very interested in someone asking questions about the most
efficient, not necessarily the fastest, ways to ski. While I see merit
in contrasting earlier comments (we ski for speed vs. we ski for fun)
some of us less-talented skiers also want to be able to use our energy
wisely and many of us don't have a lot of that left because of age,
limited time for training, limited genetic endowment, etc.

Most of what I've read and been taught is technical advice that has
filtered its way down from world cup champions who are enormously
talented and well conditioned. For example, I've begun to wonder if
rapid turnover is the smartest for me to get up a hill? Some very good
skiers say it is but I've found that, as in rapid pedaling on the bike,
rapid turnover means high heart rate, sometimes very high.

While I would expect some recommendations to remain the same (good
posture, timing and balance being important for both efficiency and
speed), I wonder if looking for an "easy" way to skate wouldn't yield
some different answers than trying to find the fastest way.

Russ

  #9  
Old November 8th 06, 12:20 AM posted to rec.skiing.nordic
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default looking for better technique isn't worth it

wrote:
Ken Roberts wrote:
wrote
If you watch a World Cup or Olympic race, there are
definitely some skiers that have odd techniques ...
You can nit-pick little things about their technique and
think, "I was always told that was wrong".


The biggest example for me is Thomas Alsgaard. In the 1990s he was a winning
skater. Then in the early 00s people were congratulating themselves on how
with the new scientific research we were moving past those obviously
wasteful excessive moves of Alsgaard. In the next few years the American
skiers adopting the "new" scientific approach didn't have much success in
World Cup races. Then my coach came back from West Yellowstone and told me:
"Learn from Alsgaard." Next I hear he's been hired as technique coach for
the Swedish team.



Ken,

Thanks for starting an interesting discussion. If you have a chance to
watch Julia Tchepalova and Marit Bjoergen in the 4th leg of the '05
Oberstdorf World Cup Women's Relay you'll see a good example of two
different styles that have both produced gold medals, Tchepalova a
picture of grace and fluidity, Bjoergen rather stiff-legged but
extremely strong.

I would be very interested in someone asking questions about the most
efficient, not necessarily the fastest, ways to ski. While I see merit
in contrasting earlier comments (we ski for speed vs. we ski for fun)
some of us less-talented skiers also want to be able to use our energy
wisely and many of us don't have a lot of that left because of age,
limited time for training, limited genetic endowment, etc.

Most of what I've read and been taught is technical advice that has
filtered its way down from world cup champions who are enormously
talented and well conditioned. For example, I've begun to wonder if
rapid turnover is the smartest for me to get up a hill? Some very good
skiers say it is but I've found that, as in rapid pedaling on the bike,
rapid turnover means high heart rate, sometimes very high.

While I would expect some recommendations to remain the same (good
posture, timing and balance being important for both efficiency and
speed), I wonder if looking for an "easy" way to skate wouldn't yield
some different answers than trying to find the fastest way.

Russ


My 2 cents-

Like most sports- it is the MIND not the body that makes the difference
in competition. There are some basic fundamentals in all sports, but
not only one correct way. Take golf- many different swings and putting
strokes used by the pros- but Tiger- the best mind excels-even with a
different swing than he used before.. Jordan in hoops- again the mind.
For recreational athletes- trying to imitate the greatest is what we
are trying to archive and may bring us the most joy- again the mind,
only this time fooling us that we might even be remotely close to
them!!

Joe

  #10  
Old November 8th 06, 02:25 PM posted to rec.skiing.nordic
jgs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default looking for better technique isn't worth it


Ken Roberts wrote:

Seated pedaling on a bicycle is pretty near the simplest kind of human
propulsion.


Ken, I think running is the simplest form....maybe walking.

As for speed and technique - I think proper skiing is removing
everything that is wrong. Sort of like the story of how Michelangelo
carved the David, just chip away everything that is not the David.
Skiing is not one technique, it is constantly changing and working the
transitions. The best thing for learning is time on the snow - sort it
out - remove the bad.

/john

 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
double poling technique Tall Willy Nordic Skiing 7 March 2nd 05 08:53 PM
a little leg move from Carl Swenson Ken Roberts Nordic Skiing 20 December 23rd 04 11:01 PM
Grasshopper technique questions! Tom Snowboarding 16 February 5th 04 06:23 PM
Skate technique USST two cents Pete Vordenberg Nordic Skiing 52 January 22nd 04 03:31 PM
Thomas Alsgaard comments on technique... SBull10152 Nordic Skiing 23 December 11th 03 02:11 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 AM.


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