On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 12:59:21 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Dec 29, 2:52*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:28:58 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:





On Dec 29, 12:56 pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Dec 29, 12:32 am, "

wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 02:56:44 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote:
" wrote in
:

On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:35:35 +0000 (UTC), Tegger
wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:10:19 -0500, George
wrote:

I don't care for the offset versions and can't see how it helps your
back.

They save your back by allowing you to lift with your back
straight(er) so you naturally use your legs. It does work.

I think it depends on the person using it, like anything else.

You may not believe it, but it works for anyone taller than the
shovel. You don't have to reach down as far to grab the handle. It
really is a back-saver.

One size does not fit all.

I'm 6'2", and often need to bend over with the straight-shaft shovels.
But I still dislike the cranked ones: they just don't /feel/ right.

You've just not given them a chance. They really are better on your back.

I hate the
curved/offset handle, and prefer a straight one. Ever notice that you
never see curved/offset handles on regular shovels?

Completely different tool with different action. You use your feet on
a spade to sink them into the ground.

Um, spades are not the kind of "shovel" I was referring to.

Then WTF were you talking about?

If you're digging sand, you don't need your foot to sink the shovel
into the pile, and that's similar to shoveling snow, so just eliminate
the foot thing straight away as it has no bearing. The reason I don't
like the bent-handled, what-trick-can-we-come-up-with-to-sell-more-
shovels is twofold. The first is that with a bent handle there is a
greater moment arm which makes tossing the snow anywhere but straight
ahead of the shovel more problematic. I toss the snow, as another
poster mentioned they did, and the bent handle requires you to have a
much tighter grip on the shovel to prevent it from rotating when
you're tossing the snow. This is due to the offset and is simple
physics. The other reason is that the shorter straight handle section
of a bent handle doesn't allow as many hand positions, and doesn't
allow your hand to slide along the shaft, which is critical when
tossing snow.

Otherwise...wait for it... I would have called a spade a spade! (I'm
LOL'ing to myself right now!)

Snow shovels aren't used this
way.

I prefer a smaller, plastic-bladed shovel, lifting smaller loads many
times rather than larger loads fewer times. The lighter the shovel,
the more snow can be moved with the same ultimate effort.

Nonsense. If you believe that, why don't you use a teaspoon?

That's a silly question. Do you eat your soup with a snow shovel? Or
with an eyedropper? There's a "right" size, and a "not-right" size.

Correct - a range of "right" sizes, though. People vary.

You just said that a smaller shovel was more efficient. Well, isn't a
teaspoon small enough?

The most efficient is the tool that allows you to move the least and not
overload (injure) the muscles. Wasted movement is not efficient.

That is interesting - those two sentences can be parsed different ways
to mean totally different things.

"Allows you to move the least" - move the least snow per shovel-full,
or move your body the least? It doesn't really matter as your core
concept belief is stuck in the snow. Snow shoveling is a sport -
at least the way I do it - and it is similar to other sports where
there is a decided difference in approach to ultimate strength versus
endurance. Any exercise where there is low weight/load and high reps,
at an appropriate rate, will see an overall improvement in endurance
(stamina) and a more efficient result. A high cadence in cycling is a
perfect analogy. It improves long term efficiency and minimizes
injuries.

The second sentence is even more vague. You have no idea if a "wasted
movement" is efficient on an overall basis. You're starting out with
the presupposition that the movement is wasted. Measure calories and
we can talk overall efficiency.

The only benefit to having a larger shovel is that hopefully you'll
finish shoveling before your back gives out.

R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"The only benefit to having a larger shovel is that hopefully
you'll finish shoveling before your back gives out. "

Hmm...I'm was on your side up until you added that line.

If there is a numerical relationship between weight and back problems
then a bigger shovel offers no advantage or it might even be a
detriment.

Just throwing numbers out and obviously using extremes, consider
this...

Perhaps I can toss 100 five-pound shovelfuls or 50 ten-pound
shovelfuls before my back goes out . I tossed the same 500 pounds
either way so I gain no benefit from the bigger shovel.

Now, going to the extremes, let's say I tossed 1,000,000 spoonfuls vs.
1 huge shovelful that cleared the entire driveway. Odds are my brain
will go out before my back would when using the spoon, but my back
would be shot as soon as I tried to lift the huge shovelful.

My point is that a bigger shovel may not be any advantage since I
don't think back issues are "timed" as much as they are related to the
strain put on the muscles. I'd have to lean towards bigger shovels
having more risk than smaller ones.

Now add in the weight of your back, arms, and the shovel.

OK, let's see, the average head weighs about 8% of the total body
weight, the legs are about 40% and each butt cheek is at least 4 - 5
lbs (depending, of course...)

Now all I need to do is figure out where my front stops and my back
begins and I'll have that figure for you.

Please stand by.

The point being that you're only counting part of the energy used.