fanievb Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 But R7999? Holy Pooh-shoot! I'll stick to my Versus Socks...Local is Lekker! it's called sock smoking
shaper Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 I was actually quite serious. Lactic threshold is an important measurement for athlete who would like to improve and know how to race optimally. This is why pros do the test regularly. Can not compare it to a power balance band... This is meaningful analytics. And much easier and cheaper to do a 30min time trial either running or cycling and use a decent HRM/watch.
banna Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 Compression of the lower leg DOES improve pressure in the veins which helps to flush toxins out of the muscles. Surgeons do you use compression socks after surgeries to stop DVTs and its medically proven to help in the prevention of them. Most of the worlds atheletes fly with them on. The missing details here are, people with naturally low blood pressure have the biggest perceived results. Because of pressure rising, the toxins flush faster. I have used and still use mine after long days and hard days of training. The next day my legs don't feel as sore and tight. What does this mean in actually perfomance percentage? I don't know, but I take huge confidence from how my legs feel, and that is worth every penny!Jip, same here. Not really sure whether it's a placebo, but I do feel a difference wearing them after a long run.
Spinnekop Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 Compression socks are VITAL if you want good meso-vascular-Veinus function. It has been said that wearing these will cut your recovery time in half and infuse your blood with vital nutrients faster than Froome can descend a mountain. Added to this is that you can get totally free disqualification from any CSA sanctioned rave race because they are not legal in races but who cares. At least you will feel better afterwards blah blah blah gobbledygook :ph34r: So is CSA scared it gives an unfair advantage (that it actually works?) or that the image of the sport gets jeopardised?
BDF Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 So is CSA scared it gives an unfair advantage (that it actually works?) or that the image of the sport gets jeopardised? It's not really compression socks that are banned, just long socks. I honestly have no clue why they are not allowed. Sleeveless shirts also not allowed but that could conceivably be for safety reasons in the event of a fall. Just some arb stuff I remembered from when I needed to know a whole bunch of rules.
Kranswurm Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 It's not really compression socks that are banned, just long socks. I honestly have no clue why they are not allowed. Sleeveless shirts also not allowed but that could conceivably be for safety reasons in the event of a fall. Just some arb stuff I remembered from when I needed to know a whole bunch of rules. Nonsense...they are banned because they look dorkish
IceCreamMan Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 I bought a pair, was liberated of R500 smacks, made my IM2016 time 2 hours faster than 2015. But that could of been the extra training I did or the fancy tri shirt I bought....naaa was def the socks. In reality, I don't notice a difference, there are so many variables at play that its impossible to isolate the compression items by themselves. Research seems to indicate they assist recovery and aid nothing in the actual exercise itself. I think I wasted 500 , but I look the part at all the events with them so there is that hey
bikebloke Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 I bought a pair, was liberated of R500 smacks, made my IM2016 time 2 hours faster than 2015. But that could of been the extra training I did or the fancy tri shirt I bought....naaa was def the socks. In reality, I don't notice a difference, there are so many variables at play that its impossible to isolate the compression items by themselves. Research seems to indicate they assist recovery and aid nothing in the actual exercise itself. I think I wasted 500 , but I look the part at all the events with them so there is that hey pictures or it didn't happen we want to see you in them
herrowpreeze Posted July 27, 2016 Author Posted July 27, 2016 thanks everyone looks like i'm sticking with my normal socks
BDF Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 thanks everyone looks like i'm sticking with my normal socksYou gotta love the 'Hub! It has this wealth of info (opinion/fact/theory..) but great fun to sift through!
shaper Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 thanks everyone looks like i'm sticking with my normal socksbuy a red bike instead... they are known to be faster!!
V12man Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 There is ONLY ONE sock on the market that offers anything meaningful: Ever Heard of BSX? https://www.buycycle.co.za/mountain-bike/technology/computers/bsx-insight-cycling-edition/Best you find a reputable study for these first - and until then I call it just marketing smoke and mirrors... BS in other words.
bikebloke Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 this guy managed fine with ordinary little white sox (orange bike though )
BDF Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 this guy managed fine with ordinary little white sox (orange bike though )But he denied himself the chance of a quantum leap in performance due to not wearing the go-faster super analytical sock. It must feel wierd wearing only one of them. Maybe if one wore it on one's head it could show brain capacity?
Spinnekop Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 Nonsense...they are banned because they look dorkishGot fined once (talked myself out of the fine) for wearing a short sleeve...."Rule yadayada....section yadadayada.....for safety reasons" "Maar tannie....hoe moes ek weet? Ek bly dan in die bos? Ons kry warm daar..."
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.