Gonchar
Robert Chung
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
Robert Chung wrote:
> Yikes.
Why doesn't he do better overall? He's obviously monster strong, not
over-extended after 3 weeks and isn't any heavier than the others.
Joseph
Alex
But it was refreshing to see a historic TT specialist winning bck his bread
and butter. It seems that finally the times of the cross-over specialists
are all gone after Operacion Puerto ( read alert on Cunego, though!! :).
<joseph.sa...@gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1153582776.1...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tom Kunich
news:1153582776.1...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Now you've gone and done it. Robert will have to publish a couple of charts.
Simon Brooke
He was a very happy bunny on the podium again, which is refreshing to
see. But yes, the man's a monster. Looks about as ungainly and
uncomfortable on a time trial bike as it's possible to be, but if it
works, don't knock it. Mind you, his nose certainly breaks UCI
regulations on fairings...
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; All in all you're just another nick in the ball
-- Think Droid
Michael Press
"Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> Yikes.
IFYPFY.
--
Michael Press
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <1153582776.1...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> joseph.sa...@gmail.com ('joseph.sa...@gmail.com') wrote:
>
> >
> > Robert Chung wrote:
> >> Yikes.
> >
> > Why doesn't he do better overall? He's obviously monster strong, not
> > over-extended after 3 weeks and isn't any heavier than the others.
>
> He was a very happy bunny on the podium again, which is refreshing to
> see. But yes, the man's a monster. Looks about as ungainly and
> uncomfortable on a time trial bike as it's possible to be, but if it
> works, don't knock it. Mind you, his nose certainly breaks UCI
> regulations on fairings...
>
It was funny listening to the Norwegian Eurosport commentator talk
rubbish about how spinning a high cadence is preferable because it
inhibits lactic acid build up. Cut to video if Gonchar churning about
40 rpm and clobbering everyone. Again.
Joseph
sonarrat
> in message <1153582776.1...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> joseph.sa...@gmail.com ('joseph.sa...@gmail.com') wrote:
>
>
>>Robert Chung wrote:
>>
>>>Yikes.
>>
>>Why doesn't he do better overall? He's obviously monster strong, not
>>over-extended after 3 weeks and isn't any heavier than the others.
>
>
> He was a very happy bunny on the podium again, which is refreshing to
> see. But yes, the man's a monster. Looks about as ungainly and
> uncomfortable on a time trial bike as it's possible to be, but if it
> works, don't knock it. Mind you, his nose certainly breaks UCI
> regulations on fairings...
I never got to see Indurain in action - how does Gonchar's stance on the
bike compare with his position?
Howard Kveck
> I never got to see Indurain in action - how does Gonchar's stance on the
> bike compare with his position?
If you do a Google image search on Indurain, a metric buttload of shots of him on
TT bikes will turn up. Granted, sometimes it's hard to really compare because
Indurain rode some very odd looking bikes compared with what they're riding now.
One thing's certain - Miguel Indurain never responded to winning a stage like
this:
<http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/tour06/index.php?id=/photos/2006/tour06/tour0
619/DV96059>
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Robert
--cutting ---
>
>
> It was funny listening to the Norwegian Eurosport commentator talk
> rubbish about how spinning a high cadence is preferable because it
> inhibits lactic acid build up. Cut to video if Gonchar churning about
> 40 rpm and clobbering everyone. Again.
I'm one of those people whose legs burn up if I pedal (hard) at any
cadence less than about 80. What is it that allows some riders to pedal
super-slow for such a long time?
/Robert
Robert Chung
> I'm one of those people whose legs burn up if I pedal (hard) at any
> cadence less than about 80. What is it that allows some riders to pedal
> super-slow for such a long time?
>
> /Robert
Cadence is a red herring.
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
And I am the opposite. There are so many factors that it is probably
impossible to answer. One thing that is for sure is there is a large
range with no right or wrong way in general.
Joseph
Alex
Gontchar, Sevilla and Ullrich are notorious examples.
"Robert" <rxobert...@txripnet.se> escribió en el mensaje
news:r8Hwg.10205$E02....@newsb.telia.net...
Robert
> It seems that T-Mobile likes (used to like) low cadence cyclists:
> Gontchar, Sevilla and Ullrich are notorious examples.
>
Could be that T-Mobile got a good contract on a lifetime supply of 56T
rings and picked only riders that were capable of using them up ;-)
/Robert
Donald Munro
> It seems that T-Mobile likes (used to like) low cadence cyclists:
> Gontchar, Sevilla and Ullrich are notorious examples.
Notorious ? Does that imply there's something wrong with such a style ?
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
Lance spins and Lance wins. So spinning is good right? I have an
entirely baseless theory that one of the reasons spinning helped Lance
was training like that helped him keep his muscle mass down to stay
lighter, and since he trained like that, he raced like that. In Oslo at
the World Championships he sure was buff. I saw it live but I didn't
pay any attention to cadence. What sort of cadence did he use in the
old days?
Joseph
John Forrest Tomlinson
>Lance spins and Lance wins. So spinning is good right? I have an
>entirely baseless theory that one of the reasons spinning helped Lance
>was training like that helped him keep his muscle mass down to stay
>lighter, and since he trained like that, he raced like that. In Oslo at
>the World Championships he sure was buff. I saw it live but I didn't
>pay any attention to cadence. What sort of cadence did he use in the
>old days?
I saw a video of that race, and he seemed to use a normal cadence for
a classics-riding pro.
I watched him first-hand in his second-to-last amateur road race and
noticed he was using a pretty low cadence early in the race -- but
nothing was going on and he seemed to just not bother shifting down so
much on the hills. I didn't see what he was doing later to in the
race -- he was up the road.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Alex
"Donald Munro" <fat-d...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:44c3d4e4$0$30178$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
No. I meant generally known and talked of.
RonSonic
That would be "notable" or "noted."
Ron
Sonarrat
I can hardly even keep my cadence above 90, but that might be just poor
technique rather than a natural proclivity. I definitely do ride
strongest at 70-80 rpm.
Sonarrat
I've been told by a fitness instructor that pedaling with heavy
resistance tones the muscles that are there, but won't build new ones.
Tom Kunich
news:%%Wwg.1562$7C....@fe06.lga...
>
> I've been told by a fitness instructor that pedaling with heavy resistance
> tones the muscles that are there, but won't build new ones.
Think about this Jeff - you were just told that weight lifting won't build
muscles.
Tom Kunich
> I can hardly even keep my cadence above 90, but that might be just poor
> technique rather than a natural proclivity. I definitely do ride
> strongest at 70-80 rpm.
Are you racing? As you build strength racing you sort of automatically gain
a higher cadence.
sonarrat
Ah well, she was cute.
sonarrat
Me? Race? I might be 23, but I may as well be a fatty master for the
kind of shape I'm in.
Donald Munro
> entirely baseless theory that one of the reasons spinning helped Lance
> was training like that helped him keep his muscle mass down to stay
> lighter, and since he trained like that, he raced like that. In Oslo at
> the World Championships he sure was buff. I saw it live but I didn't
> pay any attention to cadence. What sort of cadence did he use in the
> old days?
Like a notable albeit not notorious member of rbr puts it, cadence is a
red herring.
Tom Kunich
news:ZtYwg.542$IV3...@fe02.lga...
Some people can drive themselves to train as hard as they would in a race.
This is the kind of riding it takes to build up the sort of strength that
causes higher cadences. And the reason for that is that a peloton generally
rides at the speed of the slower members of the group. So when you get
stronger you drop into lower gears in order not to outrun the peloton (or to
end up on the front all the time). Over time you'll be accelerating in
smaller gears and your cadence will grow.
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
Or you could work on it. Back when I had a coach, he used to make us
ride in the 42x19 all spring long. Later he added hill intervals where
we had to stomp up in the 53x13 and spin down in the 42x19. I don't
know if it worked or not, but I'm sure it is certainly possible to
train/acclimate oneself to a different cadence. At least to a higher
cadence, I'm not sure it goes as easily the other way.
Joseph
Robert Chung
> Back when I had a coach, he used to make us
> ride in the 42x19 all spring long. Later he added hill intervals where
> we had to stomp up in the 53x13 and spin down in the 42x19. I don't
> know if it worked or not,
Cadence is a red herring.
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
What cadence do you find yourself using? Any thoughts on why? My theory
has to do with comfortable muscle contraction rates being a somewhat
individual thing with a narrow "band" of comfortable values, while
force generated has a much wider range of comfort limited by strength
on one end (or percantage of max strength used) and cardio fitness on
the other.
Joseph
Robert Chung
>
> What cadence do you find yourself using? Any thoughts on why? My theory
> has to do with comfortable muscle contraction rates being a somewhat
> individual thing with a narrow "band" of comfortable values, while
> force generated has a much wider range of comfort limited by strength
> on one end (or percantage of max strength used) and cardio fitness on
> the other.
I don't focus on cadence. Power is proportional to cadence * torque so in
the course of riding we're all constantly adjusting all three together,
particularly in response to crank inertia. So even if you think there's
some benefit to training cadence separately from torque (Do marathon
coaches train their runners to take teenylittlestepsrealfast early in
training but h u m o n g o u s...s l o w...s t r i d e s later on?) it
still doesn't make sense to prescribe a particular cadence without also
specifying a particular torque, and none of the coaches who prescribe
cadence targets appear to specify torque limits at the same time.
In a historical sense, cycling coaches focused on cadence because they
didn't have good ways to measure torque or power. However, they had
watches so cycling mythology built up around the thing they could measure,
which was cadence. But it's a red herring.
Robert
I do not at all agree that's it's a red herring. Explain to me then why
my legs get tired much faster at a cadence under 75, but my lungs want
to explode at a cadence over 120, for a sustained strong effort.
BTW my preferred cadence is somewhere around 90-95. Do you have any
preferred cadence or do you just ride at any old cadence, given what
you've written above?
/Robert B
Robert Chung
>
> I do not at all agree that's it's a red herring. Explain to me then why
> my legs get tired much faster at a cadence under 75, but my lungs want
> to explode at a cadence over 120, for a sustained strong effort.
>
> BTW my preferred cadence is somewhere around 90-95. Do you have any
> preferred cadence or do you just ride at any old cadence, given what
> you've written above?
What's the torque and crank inertia you're riding at?
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
He means that focusing on cadence as the key to performance -
for example saying that riders should train to ride at such and such
cadence - is a red herring. The important thing is power, and
riders tend to self-select whatever cadence allows them to reach
that power comfortably. So if you like 95 and I like 90, it doesn't
mean that one of us is better trained than the other. Both of us
will have the feeling of muscular fatigue pushing high gears at
low cadence, and get winded at very fast cadence, but the actual
numbers may differ.
Early to midway through the era of the Cyclist Formerly Known
As Lance, Carmichael used to go around talking about high cadence
as the key to better performance. I think he's toned that down,
or maybe I just stopped listening.
Ben
Chung Training Systems, Inc.
Ewoud Dronkert
> the Cyclist Formerly Known As Lance
Did you mean: the Lance Formerly Known As A Cyclist?
--
E. Dronkert
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
Robert wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
> > joseph.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>What cadence do you find yourself using? Any thoughts on why? My theory
> >>has to do with comfortable muscle contraction rates being a somewhat
> >>individual thing with a narrow "band" of comfortable values, while
> >>force generated has a much wider range of comfort limited by strength
> >>on one end (or percantage of max strength used) and cardio fitness on
> >>the other.
> >
> >
> > I don't focus on cadence. Power is proportional to cadence * torque so in
> > the course of riding we're all constantly adjusting all three together,
> > particularly in response to crank inertia. So even if you think there's
> > some benefit to training cadence separately from torque (Do marathon
> > coaches train their runners to take teenylittlestepsrealfast early in
> > training but h u m o n g o u s...s l o w...s t r i d e s later on?) it
The coach's theory was that stomping in a big gear developed leg
strength, and the spinning developed speed. Mix 'em together for a
power sandwich!
> > still doesn't make sense to prescribe a particular cadence without also
> > specifying a particular torque, and none of the coaches who prescribe
> > cadence targets appear to specify torque limits at the same time.
> >
> > In a historical sense, cycling coaches focused on cadence because they
> > didn't have good ways to measure torque or power. However, they had
> > watches so cycling mythology built up around the thing they could measure,
> > which was cadence. But it's a red herring.
The historical explaination makes sense. I agree it a a red herring of
sorts. I just ride as I feel, but I am interested to know why it is the
way it is.
> >
>
> I do not at all agree that's it's a red herring. Explain to me then why
> my legs get tired much faster at a cadence under 75, but my lungs want
> to explode at a cadence over 120, for a sustained strong effort.
This is my contraction-speed vs strength theory: Power is pedal speed x
pedal force. Your power is limited by your cardio fitness. Your legs
have a certain strength. If you chose to generate your power a ta low
cadence, this requires a high force to counter the low speed. This
higher force means you are asking your legs for a larger amount of
strain as a percentage of their capacity. If your legs are not
trained/suited to high force they will complain. The same is true the
other way, but it is muscle contraction speed that causes problems. My
favorite cadence is 60-75. 90 feels way too fast and 100 burns like
crazy after any length of time. My muscles seem to like force more than
speed, while yours seem to like speed more than force. I have no real
opinion on wether this is trainable. Fiber type, bulk, who knows.
Joseph
Robert Chung
>>> (Do marathon coaches train their runners to take
>>> teenylittlestepsrealfast early in training but h u m o n g o u s...s
>>> l o w...s t r i d e s later on?) it
>
> The coach's theory was that stomping in a big gear developed leg
> strength, and the spinning developed speed. Mix 'em together for a
> power sandwich!
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/components/components.html
Robert Chung
> He means that focusing on cadence as the key to performance -
> for example saying that riders should train to ride at such and such
> cadence - is a red herring. The important thing is power, and
> riders tend to self-select whatever cadence allows them to reach
> that power comfortably.
Grasshopper:
You have snatched the pebble from my hand. It is time for you to leave.
Really.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
I am sorry, Master. I now see that I was wrong to
explain the joke.
But I cannot leave yet. We here at Chung Training Systems, Inc.
still have many Chungs to train.
Robert
Who cares? The point is that different riders choose different cadences
to reach the same power output. For you to say that cadence is a red
herring discounts the importance of the rider finding the ideal one.
But if you mean that there's no point for the rider to try get used to
the highest cadence possible, then I agree with you.
/Robert
Robert
---snip---
> He means that focusing on cadence as the key to performance -
> for example saying that riders should train to ride at such and such
> cadence - is a red herring. The important thing is power, and
> riders tend to self-select whatever cadence allows them to reach
> that power comfortably. So if you like 95 and I like 90, it doesn't
> mean that one of us is better trained than the other. Both of us
> will have the feeling of muscular fatigue pushing high gears at
> low cadence, and get winded at very fast cadence, but the actual
> numbers may differ.
>
> Early to midway through the era of the Cyclist Formerly Known
> As Lance, Carmichael used to go around talking about high cadence
> as the key to better performance. I think he's toned that down,
> or maybe I just stopped listening.
>
> Ben
> Chung Training Systems, Inc.
>
OK, if that's what he means then I understand, and agree. High cadence
shouldn't be a goal in itself, though it does happen to suit some
people, myself included. /Robert
Donald Munro
> Early to midway through the era of the Cyclist Formerly Known
> As Lance,
You mean we should refer to Him as SYMBOL from now on ?
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
I disagree. Height DOES represents a "sweet spot" for rectangle area!
It seems we all more or less agree that optimal cadence self-selects.
What factors do you believe influence this selection?
Joseph
Donald Munro
> Who cares? The point is that different riders choose different cadences
> to reach the same power output. For you to say that cadence is a red
> herring discounts the importance of the rider finding the ideal one.
Why do you think such an ideal one exists. More likely the 'ideal'
cadence varies along with all the other variables.
Robert Chung
> It seems we all more or less agree that optimal cadence self-selects.
> What factors do you believe influence this selection?
1. crank inertia (or gear ratio).
2. muscle fiber type.
3. power.
Robert Chung
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> Robert wrote:
>>
>>> BTW my preferred cadence is somewhere around 90-95.
>>
>
> Who cares? The point is that different riders choose different cadences
> to reach the same power output. For you to say that cadence is a red
> herring discounts the importance of the rider finding the ideal one.
That's cuz it's unimportant for the rider to find the ideal one. Torque
and cadence are intertwined. If, as you say, you don't care about torque
you shouldn't care about cadence. Different riders choose different
cadences to reach the same power, yes; but what you're ignoring is that
the *same* rider chooses different cadences to reach the same power. There
is no ideal cadence. Looking for it is a red herring.
Robert
Donald Munro wrote:
Because if I use a different cadence than my preferred one, I cycle not
as well (worse endurance, lower speed for given comfort level, or both).
It's up to each cyclist to find their own optimal cadence. What's so
strange about that? /Robert
Robert Chung
> But I cannot leave yet. We here at Chung Training Systems, Inc.
> still have many Chungs to train.
Can you put together a chart that shows how many?
Donald Munro
>>>Who cares? The point is that different riders choose different cadences
>>>to reach the same power output. For you to say that cadence is a red
>>>herring discounts the importance of the rider finding the ideal one.
Donald Munro wrote:
>> Why do you think such an ideal one exists. More likely the 'ideal'
>> cadence varies along with all the other variables.
Robert wrote:
> Because if I use a different cadence than my preferred one, I cycle not
> as well (worse endurance, lower speed for given comfort level, or both).
> It's up to each cyclist to find their own optimal cadence. What's so
> strange about that? /Robert
You mean you always ride with the same cadence regardless of terrain,
gradient or wind ?
Ewoud Dronkert
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
I do, at least within a very narrow range. Particularly now that I have
a modern bike with brifters and 10 cogs.
Joseph
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
I think of 1 as force, so it is a bit independent of gear and crank
length, etc. I think 2 influences to what degree a person likes their
power to "consume" their strength. For example I might feel comfortable
when at 100% power I am using 30% of leg strength (force) Maybe at 75%
power I like 20%. Less of a masher might like a different ratio. I
suspect these are linear for some reason, and thus people tend to
settle on a narrow cadence range (at least for sustainable efforts,
sprinting is different) for a wide power range. Some sort of a
perceived effort thing relative to power produced.
Joseph
Robert
Yes, I use my gears. That's what they're there for.
/Robert
Robert Chung
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> joseph.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> It seems we all more or less agree that optimal cadence self-selects.
>>> What factors do you believe influence this selection?
>>
>> 1. crank inertia (or gear ratio).
>> 2. muscle fiber type.
>> 3. power.
>
> I think of 1 as force, so it is a bit independent of gear and crank
> length, etc. I think 2 influences to what degree a person likes their
> power to "consume" their strength. For example I might feel comfortable
> when at 100% power I am using 30% of leg strength (force) Maybe at 75%
> power I like 20%. Less of a masher might like a different ratio.
http://www.mae.ufl.edu/~fregly/protected/publications/jb2002.pdf
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-201X.2002.01032.x
> I
> suspect these are linear for some reason, and thus people tend to
> settle on a narrow cadence range (at least for sustainable efforts,
> sprinting is different) for a wide power range.
They don't.
Robert Chung
> Donald Munro wrote:
>> You mean you always ride with the same cadence regardless of terrain,
>> gradient or wind ?
>
> I do, at least within a very narrow range. Particularly now that I have
> a modern bike with brifters and 10 cogs.
You have data files with your recorded cadence? You're saying the cadences
lie within the same very narrow range for: 1) flat TTs; 2) steep hill
climbs; and 3) crits?
I've seen a fair number of data files from all sorts of riders on all
sorts of terrain. You'd be the first to have an identical pattern
regardless of the type of ride.
Robert Chung
> Donald Munro wrote:
>>
>> You mean you always ride with the same cadence regardless of terrain,
>> gradient or wind ?
>>
>
> Yes, I use my gears. That's what they're there for.
You'd be the second.
Michael Press
Robert <rxobert...@txripnet.se> wrote:
The antithesis is that there is no optimal cadence. Please
consider this seriously. Many act as if such is the case
with no hindrance.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<1153765511.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> Early to midway through the era of the Cyclist Formerly Known
> As Lance, Carmichael used to go around talking about high cadence
> as the key to better performance. I think he's toned that down,
> or maybe I just stopped listening.
Or maybe he was trying to confuse the opposition. I know
that when I saw and heard Carmichael I knew that I might
as well believe a aluminum siding salesman, for all the
good it would have done me.
--
Michael Press
Robert
OK all,
Let's try to get this over to something constructive.
Suppose - just suppose - I have it in my head that I do indeed have an
optimal cadence range (we'll say between 90 and 95 revs/min). Can any of
you answer the following questions:
1. Why would this notion be a disadvantage to me
2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm
3. If I do 2) what will this gain me
4. If I notice that, for the same speed, a cadence of 80 causes knee
pain (whereas a cadence of 96 does not), how shall I go about
eliminating that discomfort
5. Are there any sensible articles available on the web or authoritative
source that answer any or all of the above questions
Thanks, Robert
Bob Schwartz
> Robert wrote:
>
>> cadence less than about 80. What is it that allows some riders to pedal
>> super-slow for such a long time?
>>
>> /Robert
>
> Cadence is a red herring.
That reminds me, did you have red herring with the andouillette?
Did it taste like shit?
Bob Schwartz
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> Suppose - just suppose - I have it in my head that I do indeed have an
> optimal cadence range (we'll say between 90 and 95 revs/min). Can any of
> you answer the following questions:
>
> 1. Why would this notion be a disadvantage to me
>
> 2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm
>
> 3. If I do 2) what will this gain me
>
> 4. If I notice that, for the same speed, a cadence of 80 causes knee
> pain (whereas a cadence of 96 does not), how shall I go about
> eliminating that discomfort
>
> 5. Are there any sensible articles available on the web or authoritative
> source that answer any or all of the above questions
Define "optimal." Let's call it the cadence that you self-select -
that you pick because you feel you can generate a lot of
power without your legs burning, or that doesn't make your
knees hurt, or that lets you ride long distances without
fatigue. Suppose it turns out that this "optimal" cadence
depends on the circumstances, so it isn't always 90 or 95.
That doesn't mean that training at some other cadence
is a good idea or that you should deliberately adjust your
cadence. It just means focusing so much on cadence
is misleading.
Here's an experiment. Figure out what cadence you
ride at when on the flat and when climbing.
For ex, find two sections of road, each
that allows you to ride for a few minutes (2,5, etc) at a
steady pace, but one is flat and the other is uphill
(climbing seated, maybe like a 5% grade). Try riding
them as you normally would. Don't stare at the cadence
meter. If you have a computer that does average speed,
and you ride steadily in one gear, you can figure out
the average cadence afterward from the avg speed and
gear ratio. I haven't looked at a ton of power or cadence
files, but practically every time we talk about this, people
say that they climb at a lower cadence than when riding
on the flat, and it isn't because they've run out of low
gears. I know this is true for me.
Tom Kunich
news:4ikb8lF...@individual.net...
> joseph.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Back when I had a coach, he used to make us
>> ride in the 42x19 all spring long. Later he added hill intervals where
>> we had to stomp up in the 53x13 and spin down in the 42x19. I don't
>> know if it worked or not,
>
> Cadence is a red herring.
Not exactly Robert. When you push really big gears your muscles are
contracted for a longer time. Although it probably isn't a great deal longer
it sure as hell feels like it. On a long day in the saddle if you spin up
hills instead of grind, your legs aren't nearly as beat.
I never had any luck "training" for higher cadences, but when I had been
racing for awhile I noted that I was riding in the 15-17 for most of the
races while before that I'd been in the 12 or 13 almost all the time. When
the pack really started moving or I had to close a big gap I'd need to
larger gears but most of the time I was easily spinning.
Here I am now maybe 8 or 10 years after I stopped racing and my cadence is
slowed to what it was when I started racing. Moreover, even when I try to
"train" for higher cadences it doesn't seem to make any difference.
sonarrat
> "sonarrat" <sona...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ZtYwg.542$IV3...@fe02.lga...
>
>>Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>>"Sonarrat" <sona...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:E_Wwg.1548$7C....@fe06.lga...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I can hardly even keep my cadence above 90, but that might be just poor
>>>>technique rather than a natural proclivity. I definitely do ride
>>>>strongest at 70-80 rpm.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you racing? As you build strength racing you sort of automatically
>>>gain a higher cadence.
>>
>>Me? Race? I might be 23, but I may as well be a fatty master for the kind
>>of shape I'm in.
>
>
> Some people can drive themselves to train as hard as they would in a race.
> This is the kind of riding it takes to build up the sort of strength that
> causes higher cadences. And the reason for that is that a peloton generally
> rides at the speed of the slower members of the group. So when you get
> stronger you drop into lower gears in order not to outrun the peloton (or to
> end up on the front all the time). Over time you'll be accelerating in
> smaller gears and your cadence will grow.
My thing is that I tend to "spin out" easily. At 90 rpm I start to get
that slipping-transmission feeling, and I don't like that. It feels
like I have to work harder to keep my legs moving than is efficient for
producing forward motion, so I slip down into a gear where it's a little
bit harder to pedal, but it feels more natural because I have steady
pressure on the pedals. That helps me stay relaxed.
Tom Kunich
news:jack-66B28F.1...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
I think Roberts point is that there IS no optimal cadence within certain
limits. That each individual has his own cadence which he feels most
comfortable at during any particular power output.
I don't believe that myself. That is, I agree with his thesis but that the
limits within which each individual feels comfortable is quite narrow and
that with very few outliers I think that 65-75 on climbs is pretty normal
and 90-95 on flats as well.
I believe that the significant factor is the contraction speed of human
muscles and that's pretty much fixed.
Tom Kunich
>
> My thing is that I tend to "spin out" easily. At 90 rpm I start to get
> that slipping-transmission feeling, and I don't like that.
As you get stronger the same power output as before occurs much lower on
your output curve. This means you're more relaxed to develop the same power
and hence it's much easier for you to spin.
What I can't figure out is why you ride at 90ish at top speed on the flats
and develop your max power and yet on climbs your power output is the same
but at a lower cadence for comfort.
Bret
Robert Chung wrote:
> I don't focus on cadence. Power is proportional to cadence * torque
Power is cadence * torque dumbass. Power is proportional to both
cadence and torque.
> so in
> the course of riding we're all constantly adjusting all three together,
> particularly in response to crank inertia. So even if you think there's
> some benefit to training cadence separately from torque
I believe that there is an optimal cadence and torque combination for
maximum power transfer. Once identified, there is benefit in
maintaining cadence but dropping torque for sub-maximal efforts because
it preserves muscular strength and reinforces the motor control needed
ride at that optimal cadence. I agree that this sweet spot can vary
somewhat with conditions.
> (Do marathon
> coaches train their runners to take teenylittlestepsrealfast early in
> training but h u m o n g o u s...s l o w...s t r i d e s later on?)
Sounds like marathon coaches all ride singlespeeds.
> it
> still doesn't make sense to prescribe a particular cadence without also
> specifying a particular torque, and none of the coaches who prescribe
> cadence targets appear to specify torque limits at the same time.
>
> In a historical sense, cycling coaches focused on cadence because they
> didn't have good ways to measure torque or power. However, they had
> watches so cycling mythology built up around the thing they could measure,
> which was cadence. But it's a red herring.
How many novice cyclists have you heard say that they use big gears to
get a good workout? They equate high torque with hard work. With
experience and perhaps a little knowledge of physics, some come to
realize that cadence is an equal partner to torque in the generation of
power. If coaches focus on it, it's because the role of cadence is
less intuitive.
Spin to win.
Bret
Robert Chung
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> I don't focus on cadence. Power is proportional to cadence * torque
>
> Power is cadence * torque dumbass.
You're right. I meant that since power is generally expressed either in hp
or watts, cadence is usually measured in rpm, and torque can be measured
either in ft-lbs or Nm, you generally have to multiply by a conversion
constant to get the units to match up.
Ryan Cousineau
Ewoud Dronkert <firs...@lastname.net.invalid> wrote:
I'd like it better if it had more bounce and sizzle. How about making it
into a pictogram?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
Robert
> Robert wrote:
>
>
>>Suppose - just suppose - I have it in my head that I do indeed have an
>>optimal cadence range (we'll say between 90 and 95 revs/min). Can any of
>>you answer the following questions:
>>
>>1. Why would this notion be a disadvantage to me
>>
>>2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm
>>
>>3. If I do 2) what will this gain me
>>
>>4. If I notice that, for the same speed, a cadence of 80 causes knee
>>pain (whereas a cadence of 96 does not), how shall I go about
>>eliminating that discomfort
>>
>>5. Are there any sensible articles available on the web or authoritative
>>source that answer any or all of the above questions
>
>
> Define "optimal." Let's call it the cadence that you self-select -
> that you pick because you feel you can generate a lot of
> power without your legs burning, or that doesn't make your
> knees hurt, or that lets you ride long distances without
> fatigue. Suppose it turns out that this "optimal" cadence
> depends on the circumstances, so it isn't always 90 or 95.
> That doesn't mean that training at some other cadence
> is a good idea or that you should deliberately adjust your
> cadence. It just means focusing so much on cadence
> is misleading.
That makes sense and I agree in general that one shouldn't decide in
advance what a good cadence is and then try to match it. Instead, I
settle into a gear I like, then I occasionally look down to see what
cadence I happen to have. By then I will have sensed that any cadence
slower than the one I'm in would have caused my legs to burn a bit.
On the flats I consistently settle into about 92 rpm. Not 85 or 100,
even if I can comfortably spin my 177,5 cranks at 105 if I want.
Sometimes, though, I do use the cadence figure prescriptively,
especially towards the end of a long ride. As an example, in Sweden we
have an annual ride/race called Vättern Rundan which is 300 km (approx.
190 miles). I take about 10 hours to do it but I notice that my cadence
tends to drop to around 75 in the latter stages (by then I'm usually
pretty tired). That cadence will make my legs numb if I keep using it,
so I will deliberately up my cadence to about 85 to get the legs feeling
alive again. This is one of those times that I find my cadence sensor to
be actually useful.
>
> Here's an experiment. Figure out what cadence you
> ride at when on the flat and when climbing.
> For ex, find two sections of road, each
> that allows you to ride for a few minutes (2,5, etc) at a
> steady pace, but one is flat and the other is uphill
> (climbing seated, maybe like a 5% grade). Try riding
> them as you normally would. Don't stare at the cadence
> meter. If you have a computer that does average speed,
> and you ride steadily in one gear, you can figure out
> the average cadence afterward from the avg speed and
> gear ratio. I haven't looked at a ton of power or cadence
> files, but practically every time we talk about this, people
> say that they climb at a lower cadence than when riding
> on the flat, and it isn't because they've run out of low
> gears. I know this is true for me.
>
I agree with this as well.
On the flats my cadence tends to be around 92 (this and other figures
intended to be approximate and illustrative only).
On a 5% incline my cadence would be around 88, sitting.
Standing on the same incline, I will shift two cogs longer (e.g. 16t to
18t) and use a cadence around 78.
On a downhill, in a nice long gear, it creeps up to about 100 for some
odd reason.
Cheers, Robert
sonarrat
You've got it backwards. On the flats, I grind a low gear, because it's
not comfortable for me to spin the gears too fast and get that
pedal-through-the-floor feeling. When I climb, my cadence is faster,
because I can spin quicker more comfortably - which is in line with what
you're trying to say.
Robert Chung
> That reminds me, did you have red herring with the andouillette?
> Did it taste like shit?
That reminds me of a phrase I've never quite understood: what's a
shit-eating grin?
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Okay. In honor of your yearly vacation, I define the Chung
Score as the ratio of rbr posts in July to average rbr posts per
month for the rest of the year. If July was the same as any other
month, that would be 1 Chung. So here's the data,
with rbr and fr.rec.sport.cyclisme added in the spirit
of friendly competition. Data from groups.google.com,
July 2006 is a little low because it isn't over yet.
Historical data showing the July Effect:
<http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbr/rbr.nposts.hist.gif>
Correlation between rbr and fr.r.s.c
(not much of one except for the July Effect)
<http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbr/rbr.frsc.nposts.gif>
The plot you've been waiting for, the Chung Score
(July posts/remainder of the year average)
<http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbr/rbr.julyratio.gif>
As you can see, the July Effect has always been strong,
but in 2003-2005 was exceptionally strong in rbr, due
perhaps to LANCE. rbr is falling off overall (see first plot)
even in 2005, as the LANCE greenhouse effect diminished
or perhaps due to the Imminent Death of Usenet.
In 2006 the seasonal variation of the July Effect was
back to pre-industrial levels.
rbr appears to be limping along without the SuperWanker,
but what's really surprising is July 2006 in fr.rec.sport.cyclisme.
Their Chung Score is down below 1 (I expect it to come up
to about 1 by the end of the month). Maybe they were all out
watching the best Tour of the last N years instead of talking
about the UberAssHole?
Robert Chung
> Suppose - just suppose - I have it in my head that I do indeed have an
> optimal cadence range (we'll say between 90 and 95 revs/min). Can any of
> you answer the following questions:
>
> 1. Why would this notion be a disadvantage to me
It's only a disadvantage if you think of it as prescriptive rather than
descriptive.
> 2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm
Not particularly, unless there are specific neuromuscular adaptations
you're trying to achieve.
> 3. If I do 2) what will this gain me
Not much, unless there are specific neuromuscular adaptations you're
trying to achieve.
> 4. If I notice that, for the same speed, a cadence of 80 causes knee
> pain (whereas a cadence of 96 does not), how shall I go about
> eliminating that discomfort
First, why would you ever ride in a way that causes discomfort? Don't do
that. But, in a greater sense, this is an illustration of why focusing on
cadence is a problem. If you're getting knee pain, it is almost surely
because the force at the knee is too high, not that the muscular
contraction speed of your leg flexors and extensors is too slow. In this
situation, pedal force, not cadence, is the problem. Even at 80 rpm,
reducing the pedal force should make the pain go away which you could do,
for example, by reducing drag force: so get aerobars (that's a silly way
to do it, of course: I'm just pointing out that it's force, not leg speed,
that is the problem).
> 5. Are there any sensible articles available on the web or authoritative
> source that answer any or all of the above questions
Here.
Robert Chung
> Define "optimal." Let's call it the cadence that you self-select -
> that you pick because you feel you can generate a lot of
> power without your legs burning, or that doesn't make your
> knees hurt, or that lets you ride long distances without
> fatigue. Suppose it turns out that this "optimal" cadence
> depends on the circumstances, so it isn't always 90 or 95.
> That doesn't mean that training at some other cadence
> is a good idea or that you should deliberately adjust your
> cadence. It just means focusing so much on cadence
> is misleading.
Exactly.
> Here's an experiment. Figure out what cadence you
> ride at when on the flat and when climbing.
> For ex, find two sections of road, each
> that allows you to ride for a few minutes (2,5, etc) at a
> steady pace, but one is flat and the other is uphill
> (climbing seated, maybe like a 5% grade). Try riding
> them as you normally would. Don't stare at the cadence
> meter. If you have a computer that does average speed,
> and you ride steadily in one gear, you can figure out
> the average cadence afterward from the avg speed and
> gear ratio. I haven't looked at a ton of power or cadence
> files, but practically every time we talk about this, people
> say that they climb at a lower cadence than when riding
> on the flat, and it isn't because they've run out of low
> gears. I know this is true for me.
Here are a couple of other experiments:
1. Freely choose the gear and cadence that lets you ride at a low power,
low speed: say, 10 mph on the flat. Did you choose 90-95 rpm?
2. Freely choose the gear and cadence that lets you do a high power, high
speed sprint (not from a standing start but from your comfortable cruising
speed). Now repeat the sprint while maintaining your cadence in the range
of 90-95 rpm. In which sprint did you attain the highest speed and/or
power?
Now, what does "optimal" mean? Can you see that "optimal" depends on
specific circumstances? If so, then there isn't one optimal or ideal
cadence.
Robert Chung
> What I can't figure out is why you ride at 90ish at top speed on the
> flats and develop your max power and yet on climbs your power output is
> the same but at a lower cadence for comfort.
Crank inertia.
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
Robert Chung wrote:
> joseph.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Donald Munro wrote:
>
> >> You mean you always ride with the same cadence regardless of terrain,
> >> gradient or wind ?
> >
> > I do, at least within a very narrow range. Particularly now that I have
> > a modern bike with brifters and 10 cogs.
>
> You have data files with your recorded cadence? You're saying the cadences
> lie within the same very narrow range for: 1) flat TTs; 2) steep hill
> climbs; and 3) crits?
I guess the issue is the definition of "narrow band". Say about 10 rpm.
I don't do crits but if I did, I suspect any cadences that were
significantly outside of my range would only occur during a jump when
it is impractical to shift.
> I've seen a fair number of data files from all sorts of riders on all
> sorts of terrain. You'd be the first to have an identical pattern
> regardless of the type of ride.
I don't have any such files, but I've been thinking of getting a
computer that records such things. I ride with a very low cadence
(60-70) so perhaps this means I can get "bigger" differences with
smaller cadence changes and thus my range is narrow?
Joseph
Robert
> Robert wrote:
>
>
>>Suppose - just suppose - I have it in my head that I do indeed have an
>>optimal cadence range (we'll say between 90 and 95 revs/min). Can any of
>>you answer the following questions:
>>
>>1. Why would this notion be a disadvantage to me
>
>
> It's only a disadvantage if you think of it as prescriptive rather than
> descriptive.
That's fine. I mention in another sub-thread that only in certain
situations do I use cadence figures prescriptively.
>
>
>>2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm
>
>
> Not particularly, unless there are specific neuromuscular adaptations
> you're trying to achieve.
OK, why would I or any other rider want to train consciously at a lower
cadence?
>
>
----snip-----
>
>>5. Are there any sensible articles available on the web or authoritative
>>source that answer any or all of the above questions
>
>
> Here.
Of course I should've realised ;-) got a link?
/Robert
Robert Chung
>>> 2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm
>>
>> Not particularly, unless there are specific neuromuscular adaptations
>> you're trying to achieve.
>
> OK, why would I or any other rider want to train consciously at a lower
> cadence?
Your question shows that you're still not getting it. You'd train at a
lower or a higher cadence to train specific neuromuscular adaptations: for
example, if you're training for standing starts, or on a fixed-gear, or
for sprints. But in each of those situations, you're training not only at
a specific cadence but also at a specific torque or power for that
cadence, e.g., you train for sprinting by doing sprints. There's nothing
that says that training at 80 rpm (or 120 rpm) at low torque (=low power)
transfers to 80 rpm (or 120 rpm) at high torque (=high power). Training
cadence independently of power or torque is a red herring.
> Of course I should've realised ;-) got a link?
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage and the links pointed to from
there. In particular,
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/components/components.html
Robert Chung
> but what's really surprising is July 2006 in fr.rec.sport.cyclisme.
> Their Chung Score is down below 1
When did Bruce start raising his profile in frsc?
Robert
Very interesting to see this. Especially the second link as you pointed
out. I'll have to digest slowly this evening, but now I understand much
better what you're trying to tell me.
Your real empirical data didn't harm either ;-) One of many things that
I found interesting here was to follow the data points along a given
power contour (e.g. 300w) and see that there were many torque/cadence
combinations used. In addition, all the occurrences of a cyclist in the
middle of a peloton "pedalling air" (close to zero torque at anything
between 40 and 80 rpm) are faithfully reproduced, notably in the road
and crit graphs.
Thanks for taking the trouble to lead me through your reasoning.
BTW how did you get into this area originally - from the physiology /
sports medicine side, the product side (power meters), or as an
ex-competition rider?
Cheers,
Robert B
Ewoud Dronkert
>BTW how did you get into this area originally - from the physiology /
>sports medicine side, the product side (power meters), or as an
>ex-competition rider?
A stooping physicist.
--
E. Dronkert
Donald Munro
> A stooping physicist.
At least he's not stooped enough to go frog gigging.
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
Try some and you'll see!
;-)
Joseph
Robert Chung
> BTW how did you get into this area originally - from the physiology /
> sports medicine side, the product side (power meters), or as an
> ex-competition rider?
None of the above. I like marinated herring.
RonSonic
Kinda the same as a possum eating fish guts outta a wirebrush.
Ron
aco...@earthlink.net
> Cadence is a red herring.
Andy Coggan
P.S. Don't tell all the trackies about this study, as they won't be
able to use the "I had the wrong gear on!" excuse any more.
aco...@earthlink.net
> OK all,
>
> Let's try to get this over to something constructive.
>
> Suppose - just suppose - I have it in my head that I do indeed have an
> optimal cadence range (we'll say between 90 and 95 revs/min). Can any of
> you answer the following questions:
>
> 1. Why would this notion be a disadvantage to me
Because it causes you to focus on your cadence instead of other things
that are far more important (e.g., you actual power output).
> 2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm
Only if you expect to use such cadences when racing.
> 3. If I do 2) what will this gain me
Probably not much.
> 4. If I notice that, for the same speed, a cadence of 80 causes knee
> pain (whereas a cadence of 96 does not), how shall I go about
> eliminating that discomfort
Pedal at 96 rpm.
> 5. Are there any sensible articles available on the web or authoritative
> source that answer any or all of the above questions
Lots - I suggest that you start here: www.pubmed.gov
Andy Coggan
Bret
Robert Chung wrote:
> Robert wrote:
> > Robert Chung wrote:
> >> Robert wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> What's the torque and crank inertia you're riding at?
> >
> > Who cares? The point is that different riders choose different cadences
> > to reach the same power output. For you to say that cadence is a red
> > herring discounts the importance of the rider finding the ideal one.
>
> and cadence are intertwined. If, as you say, you don't care about torque
> you shouldn't care about cadence. Different riders choose different
> cadences to reach the same power, yes; but what you're ignoring is that
> the *same* rider chooses different cadences to reach the same power. There
> is no ideal cadence. Looking for it is a red herring.
Do you not agree that for a given condition (flat road, no wind, time
trialing) every rider has a maximum power that they can generate at a
given cadence and that when plotted would be zero at the extremes with
a peak at some point in between? You see no value in finding that peak?
The use of maximum possible torque at each cadence is implicit.
Bret
Donald Munro
It won't be very popular with the LANCE fans either.
mcahi...@yahoo.com
If I understand this correctly, power was fairly constant over a fairly
wide range of cadence/torque combinations.
This may explain why fixed gear riding isn't that much different than
geared riding in terms of performance (with the exception of huge hills
which requires cadence adjustment outside the relatively wide range of
the study).
In geared riding a rider tends to keep cadence fairly constant while
varying torque. In fixed gear riding you keep torque fairly constant
while varying cadence.
Nev Shea
@individual.net:
> That reminds me of a phrase I've never quite understood: what's a
> shit-eating grin?
Way back in high school I heard the phrase "He's grinning like a skunk
eating shit", so I always thought a shit-eating grin referred to that.
Of course, that raises the questions -- do skunks eat shit? If so, do they
grin when they eat it?
NS
fan of Pepe Le Peu
Kyle Legate
and read the paper afterwards. All the information is already summarized.
Robert Chung
> Do you not agree that for a given condition (flat road, no wind, time
> trialing) every rider has a maximum power that they can generate at a
> given cadence and that when plotted would be zero at the extremes with
> a peak at some point in between
Sorta, but I think finding that maximum isn't quite as easy as you appear
to think it is.
> You see no value in finding that peak?
Not really, except for curiosity's sake. I don't think it has a very
important prescriptive role in terms of training. See
http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining , especially figure 2.
Wayne Pein
> Bret wrote:
>
>
>>Do you not agree that for a given condition (flat road, no wind, time
>>trialing) every rider has a maximum power that they can generate at a
>>given cadence and that when plotted would be zero at the extremes with
>>a peak at some point in between
>
Power cannot be zero at a given cadence.
Wayne
Bret
That was me that said that. I was talking about the theoretical extreme
of zero torque and infinite cadence.
Bret
Tom Kunich
news:4iluqgF...@individual.net...
What exactly is that? Inertia implies a carry through which you don't have
with a freewheel.
Bret
> Bret wrote:
>
> > Do you not agree that for a given condition (flat road, no wind, time
> > trialing) every rider has a maximum power that they can generate at a
> > given cadence and that when plotted would be zero at the extremes with
> > a peak at some point in between
>
> Sorta, but I think finding that maximum isn't quite as easy as you appear
> to think it is.
Why is that? Do you think that the slope of the Power curve is too low
to detect the peak?
>
> > You see no value in finding that peak?
>
> Not really, except for curiosity's sake. I don't think it has a very
> important prescriptive role in terms of training. See
> http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining , especially figure 2.
You are focused on cadence as a training tool and Andy's main point in
the article is that low cadence workouts are ineffective as strength
training. But I'm not talking about that or any other training method.
I'm talking about finding the cadence for maximum power transfer and
using it when maximum power is needed.
Regarding figure 2, the plot of max AEPF vs. CPV (solid black line)
indicates that peak power is at 120 RPM (stated in the linked article).
I'm a little unclear how that line was plotted.
Bret
Robert Chung
>> Crank inertia.
>
> What exactly is that?
Hansen, et al. 2002. "Crank inertial load affects freely chosen pedal rate
during cycling." Journal of Biomechanics 35: 277-285.
Robert Chung
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> Bret wrote:
>>
>>> Do you not agree that for a given condition (flat road, no wind, time
>>> trialing) every rider has a maximum power that they can generate at a
>>> given cadence and that when plotted would be zero at the extremes with
>>> a peak at some point in between
>>
>> Sorta, but I think finding that maximum isn't quite as easy as you
>> appear to think it is.
>
> Why is that? Do you think that the slope of the Power curve is too low
> to detect the peak?
No, not exactly, it's because power is a rate over time, and "maximum"
power is going to be affected by the length of time over which it is
measured even for a particular cadence. Max one-second power at a given
cadence is going to be different than max 30-second power (or 1 minute, or
5 minute, or 1 hour). So, explain the experiment that you'd do to find,
say, max 5 second power at 90 rpm. How do you keep your cadence constant
at 90 rpm for that length of time? How do you know that was your best
effort? Or perhaps you meant max power over one comple crank revolution,
at many different rpms (e.g., max power for 1 second at 60 rpm, max power
for .67 seconds at 90 rpm, max power for .5 seconds at 120 rpm). Getting
this latter thing would be simpler but I'm not sure what practical use
there is in knowing max power over 1 crank revolution at a given cadence.
What do you think it's useful for?
>>> You see no value in finding that peak?
>>
>> Not really, except for curiosity's sake. I don't think it has a very
>> important prescriptive role in terms of training. See
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining , especially figure 2.
>
> You are focused on cadence as a training tool and Andy's main point in
> the article is that low cadence workouts are ineffective as strength
> training. But I'm not talking about that or any other training method.
> I'm talking about finding the cadence for maximum power transfer and
> using it when maximum power is needed.
Actually, I'm not focused on cadence solely as a training tool. I don't
think it has a prescriptive role in training, yes; but I also don't think
it has a prescriptive role in racing.
> Regarding figure 2, the plot of max AEPF vs. CPV (solid black line)
> indicates that peak power is at 120 RPM (stated in the linked article).
> I'm a little unclear how that line was plotted.
From standing start data. But one of the things to notice was that the
solid line was pretty linear over a wide range of cadences. If you have a
linear relationship between pedal speed and pedal force, their product is
maximized at half of max speed (and half of max force). So if you knew max
cadence was around n, you'd know max power is attained at around n/2. But
you weren't asking about the cadence that maximizes power, you were asking
about the max power at each level of cadence. So I was pointing at figure
2 to show that the max 1 revolution power at different cadences is way
above the power you use in racing situations (that's why the line is above
the color blobs).
Though I sort of like your implication for an entirely new category of
Master Fatty excuses: "I had the wrong cadence when he attacked."
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> > the article is that low cadence workouts are ineffective as strength
> > training. But I'm not talking about that or any other training method.
> > I'm talking about finding the cadence for maximum power transfer and
> > using it when maximum power is needed.
>
> Actually, I'm not focused on cadence solely as a training tool. I don't
> think it has a prescriptive role in training, yes; but I also don't think
> it has a prescriptive role in racing.
I think there's a further issue in terms of prescriptiveness.
Suppose you defined max power in some sensible way,
like max power for a 2 minute (or 5 minute or whatever)
interval. And you tried to figure out what cadence would
maximize power. Power is probably a weak function of cadence
in the "comfortable" range. But even if you could do this, a bigger
problem is that the "best" cadence might depend on when
you're doing the interval. Maybe it would be different after a
10 min warmup than at the end of a 2 hour hilly race, or
trying to ditch your buddy before the town line at the end
of a 5 hour training ride.
I offer no proof it would be different, I just know that pedaling
feels different under those circumstances, and my self-selected
cadence is probably different too. I would not expect to
put out more power when fatigued by imposing a high
cadence that I find comfortable when fresh.
That said I think it's worth training to ride at a reasonably
high cadence (the usual 90 or so) because it makes the
usual trade of spinning more to delay the onset of fatigue,
and it doesn't come naturally to novices. But anybody
who's moderately trained has probably done this already.